Talk:Universe/GA3

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

Reviewer: Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk · contribs) 04:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Beginning review. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary checks
Earwig's Copyvio Detector made false positive matches of 81.8% and 78.5%. Nothing to worry about. Many matches of isolated phrases. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Dead links in the following references
 * Reference 18:
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference 96:
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Questionable items in bibliography These are all excellent books, but their usefulness to most readers of this article is highly questionable. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please merge remaining items in Bibliography to Further Reading and eliminate Bibliography section.
 * Please merge remaining items in Bibliography to Further Reading and eliminate Bibliography section.
 * Please merge remaining items in Bibliography to Further Reading and eliminate Bibliography section.
 * Please merge remaining items in Bibliography to Further Reading and eliminate Bibliography section.
 * Those are sources which are used in the article. The reference sections uses a mix of long an short cites. The ones you mention are part of the short citation scheme, and if removed would eliminate source information, leaving only the name of the author and the page of the text, but not the name of the text itself. I'll update the reference section to make it clearer.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While there I noted that the External links section has some debatable links, so I have tagged it as a concern.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree on that. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Citations needed Please clear up all "citation needed" annotations. I've checked them over, and they should be simple to supply from standard references. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've cleared up all but one, the remaining one being "There are however many differing beliefs in how these stories apply amongst those believing in a supernatural origin, ranging from a god directly creating the Universe as it is now to a god just setting the "wheels in motion" (for example via mechanisms such as the big bang and evolution)." I don't think that's a controversial statement at all, but I don't know of a good reference. ? I did choose to remove a citation needed tag without adding an explicit citation for the statement that "the Universe is expanding"; that's been cited many times in this article by that point and doesn't need another reference, I think. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 03:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. These are not controversial. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link farm It is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. Some of the links listed below clearly are of only limited interest. Other links may be to material that is neat or "gee-whiz", but do not stand out relative to hundreds of other web resources of equivalent quality. What makes these especially notable? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Dark Side and the Bright Side of the Universe Princeton University, Shirley Ho
 * Multiple Big Bangs
 * The Known Universe by the American Museum of Natural History
 * A Flight Through the Universe – BerkeleyLab
 * Understand The Size Of The Universe – by Powers of Ten
 * Browser visualization of nearby stars (Chrome browser)
 * Browser visualization of nearby stars (Chrome browser)
 * I agree that nothing stands out about these sources relative to others. I just deleted the whole further reading and external links sections. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 03:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I might have kept the link to Ned Wright's FAQ or even changed it to the home Cosmology Tutorial page, but I'm also OK with your wholesale removal. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did originally keep a few links including that FAQ, but then decided that there really was no criterion at all for including certain links and not others. It's such a broad topic that I don't see a good way for Wikipedia to have a good further reading list other than the citations. But I also wouldn't mind if someone reverts some or all of my trimming. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 12:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede

 * "After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation first of subatomic particles and later of simple atoms." (Mention CMBR here?)
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Definition

 * According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them. (Is "including electromagnetic radiation and matter" an appositive or a parenthetical phrase? Suggest converting it to a parenthetical phrase because otherwise the count of three looks as if it could be four.)
 * Done. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 14:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

 * "Regarding Plato's Metaphor of the Sun, Aristotle suggests that the rotation of the sphere of fixed stars inspired by the prime mover, motivates, in turn, terrestrial change via the Sun." (We can either add a comma after the word "stars" to delimit the appositive phrase, or delete a comma after the word "mover".)
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "and survive in modern languages, e.g., the German words" (Italicizing e.g. is optional. I regularly italicize, others may not. As I go though the article, I'll look for other uses of e.g. and i.e. looking for consistency.)
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Chronology and the Big Bang
Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "which caused the Universe to reach a much larger size almost instantaneously." (suggest a different wording than "almost instantaneously")
 * "Other observations can be explained" (I don't think that the "clarification needed" template is needed. Either clarify or remove template.)
 * "Nuclear reactions among nuclei led to the present abundances of lighter nuclei, particularly hydrogen, deuterium, and helium through a process known as Big Bang nucleosynthesis" (Misplaced sentence. Big Bang nucleosynthesis was complete by about 20 minutes or so.)
 * Done. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 14:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Properties

 * "The spacetime of the Universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean perspective" (Is this true? Who does that?)
 * "The four dimensions of spacetime consist of events that are not absolutely defined spatially and temporally, but rather are known relative to the motion of an observer." (Verbose. Try "Spacetime events are not absolutely defined spatially and temporally...")
 * "Minkowski space first approximates the Universe without gravity" (Verbose. Delete the unnecessary word "first".)
 * "Some areas of theoretical physics, such as string theory, postulate the existence of additional dimensions." (Verbose. Simply state "String theory postulates the existence of additional dimensions" and add a wikilink for string theory)
 * "Of the four fundamental interactions, gravitation is dominant at cosmological length scales; that is, the other three forces play a negligible role in determining structures at the level of galaxies and larger-scale structures." (Verbose. Delete everything after the semicolon. Explication occurs later in the paragraph.)
 * All done (the last one slightly differently than suggested). —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 14:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Shape
 * "The shape of the Universe is related to general relativity, which describes how spacetime is curved and bent by mass and energy." (Verbose. Try simply "General relativity describes how spacetime is curved and bent by mass and energy.")
 * "The curvature, topology or geometry of the Universe includes both local geometry in the observable universe and global geometry, which is possibly measurable." (Verbose. Try "The topology or geometry of the Universe includes both local geometry in the observable universe and global geometry" or some such rewording.)
 * "Investigations include, which 3-manifold corresponds to the spatial section in comoving coordinates of the four-dimensional spacetime of the Universe." (Totally garbled.)
 * "In terms of observation, the section of spacetime that can be observed is the backward light cone, being the time it takes to reach a given observer within the cosmological horizon (particle horizon)." (Verbose, technical, and inaccurate. Try "The section of spacetime that can be observed is the backward light cone, which delimits the cosmological horizon.")
 * "The particle horizon, the light horizon, or the cosmic light horizon, is the maximum distance from which particles can have traveled to the observer in the age of the Universe." (Verbose. Try "The cosmological horizon is the maximum distance from which light can have traveled to the observer in the age of the Universe.")
 * "An horizon represents the boundary between the observable and the unobservable region of the Universe." (Try "The horizon" and avoid the perpetual debate between "a" versus "an" before "h".)
 * "Observational data suggest the cosmological topological of the Universe is infinite in extent with finite age, supported by the so-called Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) models." (Verbose and garbled. Try "Observation suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent with finite age, as described by so-called Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) models.")
 * "These FLRW models of space are consistent with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Planck maps of cosmic background radiation, thus supporting inflationary models and the standard model of cosmology, describing a flat, homogeneous universe dominated by dark matter and dark energy." (Overly long sentence. Break it up and reword.)
 * All done. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 15:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Size and regions
 * "According to a restrictive definition, the Universe is everything within our connected spacetime that could have a chance to interact with us and vice versa." (Italicizing "vice versa" is optional, and I will be looking for consistency rather than imposing my preference.)
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Age and expansion Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "With the prior that the Lambda-CDM model is correct and the values of the parameters measured by various experiments including Planck," (Unclear)
 * "This expansion accounts for how it is that scientists on Earth can observe the light from a galaxy 30 billion light years away" ("accounts for how it is that" represents poor wording)
 * "and that is one of the tools used to calculate the age of the Universe." (Huh? Clarify.)
 * "The more matter there is in the Universe, the stronger will be the gravitational pull among the matter." (Reword "among the matter")
 * "If the Universe were too dense then it would re-collapse into singularity." (Suggest use of indefinite article, i.e. "a singularity")
 * "However, if the Universe contained too little matter then the expansion is accelerated greatly," (Use subjunctive)
 * "After the Big Bang, the universe is continuously expanding." (mixed tense)
 * "The rate of expansion is affected by the gravity among the matter present." (Again, "among the matter" has a very strange sound.)
 * "Surprisingly, our universe has just the right mass density of about 5 protons per cubic meter which has allowed it to expand for last 13.8 billion years, giving time to form the universe as we see it today." (Non-encyclopedic phraseology)
 * "Surprisingly, the deceleration parameter was measured by two different groups to be less than zero (actually, consistent with −1) which implied that today Hubble's Constant is increasing as time goes on." (Again, non-encyclopedic phraseology)
 * All done. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 00:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Spacetime
 * "Spacetimes are the arenas....a space which can be described at small scales using coordinate systems." (Verbose. This whole paragraph is very repetitive, with multiple definitions of "event" and multiple definitions of "spacetime".) Try something like:
 * "Spacetimes are the arenas in which all physical events take place, where an event is a point specified by its time and place. The motion of planets around the sun may be described in a particular type of spacetime, while the motion of light around a rotating star may be described in another type of spacetime. [Citation?] A spacetime is the union of all its events in the same way that a line is the union of all of its points, formally organized into a manifold." [Citation?]


 * "...in analogy with a sphere..." (Unclear. Wouldn't it be better to say that it is without any holes?)

Contents
Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "indicating no electromagnetic radiation" ("indicating that no electromagnetic radiation")
 * "is only 4.6%" ("constitutes only 4.6% ")
 * "is 26.8% of the contents" (ditto)
 * "is the remaining 68.3% of the contents." (ditto)
 * "The Universe is also bathed in a highly isotropic" ("The Universe is bathed in a highly isotropic")
 * All done. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 00:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Should these percentages be consistent in the article, which are correct? I read different percentages in the article in different locations for: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcardazzi (talk • contribs) 14:57 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ordinary baryonic matter 4.9%(WMAP) and 4.6%
 * Dark Matter 26.8% and 24%(WMAP)
 * Dark energy 68.3% and 71.4%(WMAP)
 * I cleaned that up. There is an image from the 5-year WMAP data which I think is a good image that I don't see using updated data, so I left that. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 17:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Dark energy
 * (no comments)

Dark matter
 * (no comments)

Ordinary Matter
 * Last paragraph needs a reference.
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Particles
 * "An elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle whose substructure (domain of the bigger structure which shares the similar characteristics of the domain) is unknown, thus it is unknown whether it is composed of other particles." (run-on)
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "It concerns the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, as well as classifying all the subatomic particles known." (Defective parallel structure. Try "and classifies")
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Last paragraph needs a reference.
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hadrons
 * "A hadron is a composite particle made of quarks bound state by the strong force" ("quarks bound state" ???)
 * "Hadrons are categorized into two families: baryons (such as protons and neutrons) made of three quarks and mesons (such as pions) made of one quark and one antiquark." ("made of three quarks and mesons" -> "made of three quarks, and mesons")
 * "Of the hadrons, protons are stable, and neutrons are bound within atomic nuclei are stable." (Superfluous "are" after "neutrons")
 * Not a single reference in this entire section!
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Leptons
 * "The two leptons may be classified into one with electric charge −1 (electron-like) and one neutral (neutrino)." (Easily misread. I started by mentally reading "The two leptons may be classified into one." Duh. Please reword.)
 * "Thus electrons are stable and the most common charged lepton in the Universe" (The word "Thus" does not follow from what preceded it.)
 * Last paragraph needs a reference.
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Bosons
 * "While most bosons are composite particles, and these are important in superfluidity and other applications of Bose–Einstein condensates, in the Standard Model there are five bosons which are elementary: photons, which carry the electromagnetic interaction; W and Z bosons, which carry the weak interaction; gluons, which carry the strong interaction, and the scalar boson Higgs Boson." (long, run-on sentence)
 * "The presence of this field, now believed to be confirmed, explains why some fundamental particles have mass even though the symmetries controlling their interactions should require them to be massless, and also answers several other long-standing puzzles in physics, such as the reason the weak force has a much shorter range than the electromagnetic force." (Overly long sentence.)
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Photons Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "As a result, photons no longer interacted frequently with matter, the universe became transparent and the cosmic microwave background radiation was created and then structure formation took place." (Too many "and"s. Break up this sentence.)
 * Not a single reference in this entire section!
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

File:End_of_universe.jpg
 * Not well integrated with Shape section. Where in the Shape section is there mention of the density parameter, omega?
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Elementary particle interactions in the Standard Model.png
 * Not well integrated with anything in the article. I don't see that it belongs.
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Caption has "clarification needed" tag.
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Geometry
 * "In modern physics, space and time are unified in a four-dimensional Minkowski continuum (a single interwoven continuum) called Spacetime, with the goal to create a phase space (dynamical system in which all possible states of a system are represented), whose metric treats the time dimension differently from the three spatial dimensions." (Sentence too long. Break up and reword.)
 * "The set of points in Euclidean 4-space having the same distance R from a fixed point P0 forms a hypersurface known as a 3-sphere (see also Hypersphere). The hypervolume of the enclosed space can be calculated with:
 * $$ \mathbf V = \begin{matrix} \frac{1}{2} \end{matrix} \pi^2 R^4$$"
 * (Why do we need to be told this?)

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "with t meaning the cosmological age of the universe." (Suggest "meaning" -> "equal to")
 * "Growing or shrinking R with time means expanding or collapsing universe, depending on the mass density inside." (Suggest "means" -> "corresponds to an")
 * "Thus, after the singularity, space begun to expand, and models try to recapture past and future evolution of the Universe, and to understand the fundamental principles at work." (Multiple issues with this sentence, including tense, articles, run-on, etc. Reword.)
 * Overall, I don't see the point of this section. Delete and transfer any useful information to Special relativity, General relativity, or Model of the Universe based on general relativity
 * Thanks for the suggestion; I think you're right. I checked through the section and found nothing that isn't mentioned (often in better context) elsewhere in the article, so I just deleted the whole section. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 00:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

File:121236 NewPieChart320.png File:080998 Universe Content 240.jpg Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Teeny, tiny print made with superscript markup. Hard on the eyes.
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Cosmological models (was: Theories of physics)
Special relativity Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "It is based on two postulates: (1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference); and (2) that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source." (Comments of mine standing on a soapbox: If I were performing a GA review on Special relativity, I would demand that a more modern approach be taken towards describing SR than via Einstein's original "two postulates" derivation. However, seeing as this is not the Special relativity article but faithfully follows its lede, I have to let this statement stand.)

General relativity Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (Closely and accurately paraphrases the lede of the General relativity article)

'''General comment: Do we really need close paraphrases of the lede sections of Special relativity and General relativity here? I would delete these two sections and start with Model of the Universe based on general relativity''' Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If we follow my suggestion to delete the Special relativity and General relativity sections, then raise the Model of the Universe based on general relativity by one level of header, and rename the Theories of physics header to something like Cosmological models Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that makes sense, though I added a few sentences from the old GR section back in since I thought there was too little context before jumping into a GR-based cosmological model. Since special relativity is not once mentioned elsewhere in the article (except in the re-added sentence about GR) and really isn't central to cosmological models, I agree that completely excising it was for the best. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 14:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Isambard's edits are also looking nice. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Model of the Universe based on general relativity Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "The index k can be only 0, corresponding to flat Euclidean geometry, 1, corresponding to a space of positive curvature, or −1, a space of positive or negative curvature." (Clarify, since there are different ways of interpreting this equation. Try "Taking r as unitless and R as having dimensions of length, then the index k may take on values of 0, corresponding to...")
 * "One can solve for the history of the Universe by calculating R as a function of time t, given k and the value of the cosmological constant Λ." (Verbose. Try "R is a function of time t and depends on k and the cosmological constant Λ.")
 * " However, this equilibrium is unstable and because the Universe is known to be inhomogeneous on smaller scales, so R must change." (Add a comma after "unstable", replace "because" with "since", delete "so")
 * "Second, all solutions suggest that there was a gravitational singularity in the past, when R goes to zero and matter and energy became infinitely dense." (Mixed tense. Try "when R was zero and matter and energy were infinitely dense.")
 * "For comparison, an infinite plane has zero curvature but infinite area, whereas an infinite cylinder is finite in one direction and a torus is finite in both." (Try "By analogy, ...")
 * Last three paragraphs have inadequate references.
 * I've cleaned this up. I pulled my cosmology textbook off the shelf and added refs for things I could quickly find in that book, which covers most but not all. I clarified that the scale factor is normally treated as dimensionless (good catch!). —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiverse hypothesis
 * (Paragraph 2 could probably use additional references for the many-worlds interpretation, universal wavefunction, etc.)
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine-tuned Universe
 * (No comments)

Historical development
Mythologies Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (Paragraph 1 has "citation needed" tag)
 * (Paragraph 2 needs additional references. The classification scheme presented here differs significantly from both the Eliade/Long and the Van Over schemes which are offered in Creation myth. Are we sure that we don't have a bit of OR going on?)
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Philosophical models Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "The first to do so was Thales, who proposed this material is water." ("material is water" -> "material to be water")
 * "Anaximenes proposed air" (suggest "Anaximenes proposed the primordial material to be air on account")
 * Too many "propose"s in the first paragraph
 * "...later philosophers—most notably Leucippus—proposed that the Universe is composed of indivisible atoms moving through void (vacuum). Aristotle did not believe that was feasible because air, like water, offers resistance to motion."  (Suggest "...(vacuum), although Aristotle did not believe that to be feasible...")
 * "he believed the world is bounded by the celestial spheres" ("that the world")
 * Overall, this section has insufficient references.

Astronomical concepts Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "You, King Gelon, are aware the Universe is the name given by most astronomers" (source of translation?)
 * ""Cleanthes [a contemporary of Aristarchus and head of the Stoics ] thought it was the duty of the Greeks" (source of the translation?)
 * "In the center rests the Sun. For who would place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place" (source of the translation?)
 * ✅ Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer notes

 * There being so much cleanup to do, I used my reviewer's prerogative as described in the GAN instructions for reviewers to be bold and to take care of the easy to resolve problems by myself. However, two sections need more attention than a simple copyedit and/or looking up references: Spacetime and Model of the Universe based on general relativity Hope you can get these resolved soon. This review has been far more tedious than I anticipated! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your thorough and very helpful review and edits. As is I'm sure obvious, this is as big a topic as there is, and it's always difficult to decide exactly what gets covered and in what level of detail. I do think it's a pretty good article (though the actual good article nomination was done sort of weirdly by an uninvolved editor without any discussion or notice), and your fresh eyes and detailed, knowledgable reading has made it noticeably better. I'll get back to making improvements when I can. I'll also leave a note at Talk:Universe in case other editors aren't watching the review. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 14:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"Types of spacetimes"? The following words from section Spacetime first appeared in the wiki article Spacetime on 23:07, 2 August 2006 in an edit by 202.36.179.65.
 * Spacetimes are the arenas in which all physical events take place &mdash; for example, the motion of planets around the Sun may be described in a particular type of spacetime, or the motion of light around a rotating star may be described in another type of spacetime.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spacetime&oldid=67334839

This elegant phraseology has since been copied all over the web. While I applaud the numerous improvements that Ashill and Isambard are currently making to the article, I am still waiting for section Spacetime to be provided with an appropriate citation that I can follow up that explains to me what these words mean. What are "types of spacetimes"? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know what to make of that sentence (which is why I put off dealing with it). I've cut the uncited clauses about the motion of planets and light since I don't see what they contribute to this article. I'll look for a citation for the manifold bit. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 16:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That phrase sounded like BS to me, which is why I had asked for a citation. Thanks! We are pretty near to my willing to add a GA. On my part, I need to find my copy of Oerter, since I added refs to it in multiple places, and I need to add page numbers. Referencing an entire book is sort of a no-no. You guys are doing a great job! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

On hold Too many cooks are rapidly stirring the broth. The article needs to be stable for a bit so that I can do a final evaluation before promotion. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Re-read article, looks good except for a few awkward wordings that I missed. Assigning GA status. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your thorough review. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 13:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)