The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because this was last reviewed for FA status in 2007 and our FA standards have acceleratedly expanded since then. The "Misconceptions" section is a mess and can stand to be better formatted. The "Overview" section, which might not even be needed, has a {{Refimprove}} tag on it; there are also many uncited paragraphs throughout the rest of the article. I raised these concerns on the talk page two weeks ago but little work has been done on the article since then and there was no response on the talk page. This is also a Level 3 Vital Article, making this even more important. Overall, I don't think that this represents Wikipedia's best work, although there isn't anything that can't be reasonably fixed in the course of an FAR. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Something that needs fixing is the lack of alt= on the images. This is needed for accessibility. I think that the overall size, number of sections and pictures is fine. But perhaps there could be some more tables, perhaps a Penrose diagram. Perhaps there is a suitable infobox exists for astronomical event, as it is not quite an object. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image which appears in the lead, Timeline of the metric expansion of space, where space, including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe, is represented at each time by the circular sections. On the left, the dramatic expansion occurs in the inflationary epoch; and at the center, the expansion accelerates (artist's concept; not to scale)., is seriously misleading and deficient. No scale is given. The image makes it appear that the expansion suddenly slowed at the end of the inflationary period (which is false) and that the universe is only slightly larger now than it was then (also false). No doubt there are other errors in the details of the image. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "Overview" section and rearranged the content somewhat. However, I noticed that there's a large "Further Reading" list. Such lists are absent in the majority of Featured Articles, as generally speaking a source that belongs in a Further Reading list for most articles should be incorporated into a Featured Article to make the article as comprehensive as possible. There are of course exceptions, and this topic is certainly niche enough to have readings that would make good further reading while being too specialized for a general encyclopedia, but I wonder if someone who knows more about cosmology would be willing to check out these sources and see whether they can be incorporated into the article's prose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the Beyond the Big Bang section supposed to talk about? It's title it extremely vague, and its prose is highly convoluted (at least for me, a layman). Is it trying to say hypotheses for the origin of the initial singularity? I'm sure the Misconceptions section could be merged into this one if that's the case User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk23:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it's about the limitations of the model and potential expansions on it (such as eternal inflation, brane cosmology, etc.), but the first paragraph doesn't seem to jibe well with it. I think that the first paragraph can be removed and each of the competing theories can be expanded to each have their own paragraph rather than a bullet point (subject to FRINGE, of course). I disagree that the Misconceptions should be merged into it, but I agree that both sections could stand to be greatly expanded. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I usually see this subject referred to as "Pre-big-bang cosmology", since it appears to be exploring the extended origins of the big bang event. Praemonitus (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have e-mailed Sean M. Carroll about this article and asked him to review it for its physics. I doubt that there's much wrong with the article in that respect (my major qualms are rather with presentation and prose), but I think it'd be nice to have a pair of expert eyes on it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the article I noticed that the value of Hubble's constant was given as measured by the WMAP but that no mention was made of the discrepancy between that value and the one provided by the cosmic microwave background as detailed here (admittedly not the best source, but hopefully it's adequate for what I'm saying). I don't think it's that terribly important for the article, but I think some mention of it could be made. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I may only be of much help for the little bit about Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but I'll give it a look. ^_^ Something that comes to mind immediately is that the section on BBN as evidence comes a bit out of the blue: we have only so far had a brief mention that that happened during the first few minutes, and then we hear about abundances of nuclides all the way up to those minuscule little traces of lithium-7. So I would guess that the organisation needs quite some improvement, if I can spot this on a quick reading of the part I understand the best. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
R8R review
Not the topic I am most competent in, but I think I've got a good mix of more or less generally understanding what's going on and not being an expert in details (I've read a few pop-sci books from authors like Michio Kaku, and I've just recently started to watch videos from Fermilab to refresh my knowledge). I usually strive to make my articles readable for as many people as possible, so I hope I'll be able to provide you a review you'll find useful. But I'm afraid I'll only have enough spare time in a week or so. I hope that is okay.--R8R (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ComplexRational
I'll drop a few comments, but I may be busy and only focus on areas where I generally have a better understanding of the specific content and jump around between sections (though I will try to keep order within). At first glance, I'm seeing lots of uncited statements and areas where the prose needs work.
Here are a few examples from some sections:
Horizons
Here, and throughout the article, all first- and second-person language (we, our) needs to be eliminated, as do phrases such as "catch up" (note the quotes in the article text). This is not formal or encyclopedic prose.
This defines a future horizon, which limits the events in the future that we will be able to influence. – I get a general idea of what this means, but I feel it could be better explained to the layperson and am inclined to ask "why?"
though the horizon recedes in space – not entirely clear what this means
Even with the hatnote, this could be elaborated upon. Why are horizons so important as suggested in the opening sentence?
Cosmic acceleration
a mysterious form of energy known as dark energy, which apparently permeates all of space. – this is uncited and uses language that suggests too much speculation; even though the science is not confirmed, this could be worded in a more encyclopedic way.
after numerous billion years of expansion – I'm pretty sure we can replace this with a number, and one that does not connote "numerous"
prior to 10−15 seconds or so – minor and easily fixable by itself, but I hope this isn't reflective of informality or prose issues throughout the article
Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics. – citation needed
Miscellany
I would recommend introducing all individuals and their credentials, so the reader has more context and does not believe arbitrary people are being introduced. English astronomer Fred Hoyle is a good example of this. I could go ahead and make the changes myself, but the prose might still need some adjustment.
I'll post some more comments and look at other sections later on. From this, I see several recurring issues that are workable; I'm not convinced criteria 1a, 1c, and 1d are entirely met. ComplexRational (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am actually a condensed matter physicist, but I will try to have a look (can not guuarantee I will understand the details, and in any case I am mostly travelling for the next two days).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ComplexRational, R8R, Double sharp, and Ymblanter: FAR and FARC work at a much slower pace than FAC. The original nominator/writer of this article is gone, so the question now is if someone wants to take this article on and bring it back to standard. If someone is willing to work on it, the article can hold in the FAR phase as long as work is progressing. If the problems are too great, or if no one is willing to take on the repairs, then our next step is to give the Coordinators an indication to move this to the FARC (removal) phase, by entering a Move to FARC declaration. Then, in the FARC phase, it still has a couple of more weeks, where if repairs don't happen, we !vote to Delist (or Keep if they do). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SandyGeorgia, for clarification. I'm in no hurry; if RL allows, I may even try to patch a few things up myself. My above comments were just short samples of the main issues I believe are present throughout the article, and hopefully a guide for others to chime in. ComplexRational (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to assist bringing the prose up to standard but I'm interested in further commentary on how the article meets 1c and 1d. There, I'm at a complete loss. --Laser brain(talk)18:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My personal thoughts on that matter are that the sources are currently too primary for my liking; there are probably quite a few secondary sources given that this is the Big Bang we're talking about, so this seems to not live up to 1c as well as it could. This does seem neutral, IMO, although perhaps the "Beyond the Big Bang" section could be looked at by someone with more expertise in cosmology (Dr. Carroll unfortunately never got back to me) to weed out the fringier, although eternal inflation and its competitors are legitimate enough for some discussion there IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An enumeration of secondary sources that should be consulted is probably the most helpful next step here, if work is in fact to proceed. It would also give us an idea of just how much work is needed, so we could better gauge if it is doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The primary citations to Milne, Tolman, and Zwicky caught my eye but maybe those are appropriate. It seems odd to my untrained eye to speak of three formative works and cite the works themselves rather than a secondary source explaining their relevance. I live in fear of Further Reading sections because sometimes they are lazy receptacles for stuff the author didn't have time to review. --Laser brain(talk)19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought that those citations were appropriate as well, but then I thought and became sure that there had to be some secondary sources that mentioned the discredited rivals. I agree that Further Reading sections tend to be anathema to FA status as I've said above, though perhaps it might be appropriate in this complex area. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, because space is expanding, and more distant objects are receding ever more quickly, light emitted by us today may never "catch up" to very distant objects. I think it's important to note here that the expansion of space alone is insufficient for this to be true; if space were expanding at a constant (even superluminal) rate light would still theoretically eventually reach us due to something similar to the ant on a rubber rope. The expansion is accelerating, hence why this is true. I don't have an authoritative source on that, but I think it should be added when one is found. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is better to keep specific text suggestions at the talk page of the article, and focus here on giving the Coords information about whether to move to FARC, work is ongoing, what work is still needed, etc. Otherwise, this review is going to grow extremely large. We have enough indications now that there are problems; resolving those problems can move to article talk, with periodic updates here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greene, Brian (2011). The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. ISBN978-0307278128. – A speculative work from a string theorist, but I think it is authoritative enough for the "Beyond the Big Bang" section on eternal inflation, etc..
I tended to look for more general books rather than sources like journals; the book sources I think are more appropriate for the basics (expanding space, the history of the theory, etc.), while journal articles should be used for cutting edge things like eternal inflation and string theory. This is of course not a strict dichotomy, but I think the sources given are still adequate and authoritative. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is well-cited by other works according to Google Scholar: Calcagni
Update please? @John M Wolfson, Laser brain, Ymblanter, ComplexRational, and R8R:, the last comment here is approaching two weeks now, and I see some editing has happened, but not a lot. Has the article significantly improved and is work ongoing? If not, it may be approaching time to consider whether to enter declarations regarding moving this FAR to the FARC phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for being slow, but I see that the text can still benefit from some improvement, which I am trying to introduce. I have no idea whether this improvment would have eny effect on the article status. If you have an op[inion you are welcome to proceed without me. In any case, I do not expect any revolutionary changes, only some readability.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Ymblanter. I'm very sorry for not having so much time to work on this—right now there is a lot going on for me IRL—but I still hold my concerns about language and references. ComplexRational (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I admire and appreciate the work that's been done to the article since this review began. Unfortunately, I don't feel that it is enough to keep this at FA level and I feel that this should be delisted barring a significant amount of work soon. Very little work has been done on sourcing, which is unfortunate given the concerns raised in the review section. I think the quickest, most thorough, and overall best way to make this reach FA standards would be to delist it now, have more work done on it outside of the FAC/FAR process, and have it go through another FAC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unlikely to be at the point of editing the article for a long while. The material is dense and it will take time for me to understand where I can improve the citations. --Laser brain(talk)11:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying, Laser. Ymblanter made a few improvements after the article moved to FARC,[2] but the main problems raised in the FAR have not been addressed after several months at FAR, and no one appears willing to address them on the scale needed. DELIST. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
