Talk:Tachyon/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Yitzilitt (talk · contribs) 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This review is dedicated as thanks to the Wikipedia community for helping me get the article Joel S. Levine to the point where I felt comfortable giving it a GAN (which it just passed!), so I'm going to try and give back by working on other GANs for while, starting with this one :) Yitz (talk)

detailed review section
As I work I will try to fill in this section with specific feedback. Yitz (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC) A good article is&mdash;

(1) Well-written
criteria 1a is pretty much met in terms of minimum standards, in my opinion, although it certainly can be improved to be a bit more readable for the average reader. For criteria 1b, I edited the lead section significantly, so as to better follow MOS:LEAD, and I believe it now qualifies in that regard. Layout seems fine. Words to watch has a few words mentioned that are used in the article, but are used in the proper context, so shouldn't be a problem. The section on fiction doesn't really apply at all here, and finally, the section on lists doesn't present any problems here.

(2) Factually accurate and verifiable
Criteria 2a and 2c is mostly followed, with the exception of the section Tachyon, which seems to present original research without citation. I find myself unable to verify 2b is followed, and may need to call in a second reviewer who is more knowledgeable on the topic to go through this.

(3) Broad in its coverage
Criteria 3a and 3b seem to be mostly followed, although I would add significantly more to the section Tachyon, as there really isn't much to the section right now, and is likely to be of high interest. I am also unsure if all of the technical sections are necessary, or even if they're mainstream in the scientific community.

(4) Neutral
4 is fully covered here, in my opinion, though it's possible there's some scientific bias I'm not aware of.

(5) Stable
As far as I am aware, this article is indeed stable

(6) Appropriately illustrated
6 is fully covered here.

Call for second opinion
I feel the need to bring on a second opinion at this point, due to my lack of technical knowledge which has prevented me from fully verifying this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitzilitt (talk • contribs) 07:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is not a second opinion, but the use of arxiv sources makes me think this fails criterion 2b. Arxiv is sometimes reliable, but here, it is self-published research without evidence of peer review. Urve  (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The use of arXiv sources is not a problem per se; the only two I found are by recognized experts. I'm more worried about this one : it is peer-reviewed, but published in a borderline journal, and is defending non-mainstream ideas. Also, the History section is problematic, it makes suspicious claims, and needs a secondary source to give an overview of what happened, as opposed to citing only the original proposals. I tagged it with a citation needed. Tercer (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion by Femke
Firstly, I would like to thank the IP editor and the original reviewer for tackling such an important article. Unfortunately, I do not believe it meets the GA criteria as it stands. Criterion two is not met at the time. Like the original reviewer indicated, the text in the fiction section is not reflected by the source. This is however not the only instance of a failure to meet the verification criterion. Further examples are:
 * ‘’ Further investigation of the experiment showed that the results were indeed erroneous’’
 * “This resulted in the necessity for the GSO projection.”
 * “and are probably inconsistent quantum mechanically.”

Agreed that the fiction section can be expanded, but would lean towards saying that the article does mean the broadness criteria, the expansion is only necessary for the more demanding FA criteria.

Like the original reviewer, I do not have the expertise to save the article is or isn’t neutral (a BSc in physics isn’t quite enough). However, given the article is not meeting criterion 2b, I do feel confident saying it does not meet the GA criteria. This second opinion request has been open sufficiently long that it's unlikely an expert will show up still. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Time to close?
Yitzilitt, as you are the original reviewer, it is up to you to complete the review. Under the circumstances, and with FemkeMilene's second opinion noting that the article indeed does not meet the GA criteria as you noted originally (2b in the verifiability criteria), the article should almost certainly be failed (especially as the original nominator has not addressed the issue since you first raised it in mid-February). Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Done! Yitz (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)