Talk:Universe/GA1

Failed GA on 12/3/06
I'm sorry, but this article has a few issues (and one glaring problem) that need to be corrected before it can become a Good Article. As per WP:WIAGA: I know that this article could easily be a GA if a little more work is put into it. There are a lot of things to like about this article- it's very comprehensive, it's got an excellent image, and it's NPOV, touching on many different theories. Best of luck, and feel free to resubmit to WP:GAC when the above issues are addressed. -- Kicking222 16:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1(a)- well-written/prose: A lot of individual phrases needed to be changed. To wit:
 * From "Expansion": "...the farther away from us galaxies are, the faster they move away from us." Writing should never be done in the first person; in this case, "us" should be "Earth."
 * From "Expansion": "As with most things in physics, that certainly wasn't the end of the story, as attested by the update and reissue of The First Three Minutes in 1993." This is an incredibly unencyclopedic sentence. I certainly do not want to sound condescending, as a lot of hard work has obviously been put into this article, but "that certainly wasn't the end of the story" is simply unacceptable.
 * From "Pre-matter soup": "..the first hundredth of a second was a bit of a mystery." Again, "a bit" should be changed. Ditto to "Fast forwarding to after the existence of matter..." from "First galaxies," "...there is no reason to believe that this bound is anywhere near right" from "Size," and a handful of other phrases that need to be improved in tone.
 * 1(c)- WP:MOS adherence: There are no real style problems, except for there being far too many external links. Please see WP:EL; external links should be kept to a minimum and only added when necessary, which many of these are not. In addition, it would be a good idea to list what source each link comes from, as opposed to simply including the article's title. This is not a big deal (one could simply scroll over the link to see the address), but it's a little touch that can go a long way.
 * 2- factually accurate and verifiable: The big one. The article currently has two citation needed tags, but there could be many more. For a topic this expansive, having only four references equals not having nearly enough references. I doubt there are any Good Articles within all of Wikipedia that contain so few references.