Revision as of 23:47, 28 October 2024 editJlwoodwa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers77,750 edits Notification: listing of Universe (artwork) at WP:Redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:01, 29 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,091 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Universe/Archive 4) (bot |
Line 65: |
Line 65: |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Universe/1}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Universe/1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removals == |
|
|
|
|
|
@] seems to have removed a lot of highly verifiable information from the article, as it isn't inline cited. I figure it's best just to ] so people can readd it with citations. ]] 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:@] @] How can anyone ever say “the universe is expanding” if the Universe is supposed to be all of everything that ever happened/s in all of The 4D spacetime?! You’ve got me curious about the citations though. When I looked into this one, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-Zeilik1998-11, I found it is just a Gloss from an introductory text book: https://archive.org/details/introductoryastr0000zeil/page/n643/mode/2up?q=totality, https://archive.org/details/introductoryastr0000zeil/page/n643/mode/2up?q=Glossary. Then these three were just enclyclopedia britanica, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-Britannica-22, merriam-webster dictionary, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-23, and dictionary dot com, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-24. And then this one https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-Schreuder2014-25 linked to a page from a huge book that may have had valid science somewhere, in some section, but linked directly to non-scientific philosophizing the likes of: “Of course, definitions are a matter of taste. And I prefer to write it with a capital U as there is only one of it, and I am of the personal opinion that the Universe has some sort of spiritual ‘personality’, be it, of course, of a non-human kind.” Are these adequate Sources?! Earnestly, ] (]) 03:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not sure myself as to whether the citations are adequate, but I do not feel it's necessary to deliberate here what I understand to be an incontrovertible (if abstract) claim in modern cosmology. ]] 03:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Has there never been a better reference for it though? ] (]) 03:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm sure there is. (To be clear, I'm not a major contributor to this article myself, I'm just peeking in now and then in response to the activity of others. Not to exclude the possibility, but the idea of digging in and working on this one myself is consistently frightening to me.)]] 04:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I can’t imagine a part of an equation trying to calculate an integral over all d4 either /s ] (]) 04:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== clarification of graphic == |
|
|
|
|
|
Ehhh, since I paid the attention: @] , You recently edited the Universe page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1236729776 regarding the label of a graphic that appears on that page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&diff=1236729776&oldid=1235967637. The source of that “image” https://commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=File:Extended_universe_logarithmic_illustration_(English_annotated).png&oldid=857746539 refers to it as a “graphic” (Find: “Get this graphic on a quality metal plate”) and the Misplaced Pages link validly refers to it as an “illustration.” It could also be called a “cartoon.” It is a “construction” saved as an image file. To the extent that Misplaced Pages can afford the extra two characters, we should favor the more informative label “graphic?” ] (]) 03:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, you have a point. ] (]) 03:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::cheers! ] (]) 04:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
] |
|
] |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2015 that have multiple problems. I posted this comments 20 days ago, but it seems that nobody is willing to update that article and thus GAR is required.
The article is not bad, but currently lacks citations is several sections. Chronology and the Big Bang is mostly unsourced, with cn and clarification needed tags. Physical properties uses really strange source ("Antimatter". Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council", see citation 44). Age and expansion ends with a strange sentence This acceleration does not, however, imply that the Hubble parameter is currently increasing; see deceleration parameter for details.
Spacetime has unsourced sentences. Support of life is just a few sentences with really strange sourcing: "Isaak, Mark, ed. (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle". Index to Creationist Claims." (see citation 78). Halfs of Dark energy and Ordinary matter are unsourced. Same for Hadrons.
Historical conceptions are also problematic. Half is unsourced, and the sourced parts are often built on really old sources: see "Stcherbatsky, F. Th. (1930, 1962)" (citation 152), citation 13 lacks year and page, cit 150 lacks year. Astronomical concepts is either unsourced or sourced to "Aristotle; Forster, E. S.; Dobson, J. F. (1914)"; the article abruptly ends with The modern era of physical cosmology began in 1917, when Albert Einstein first applied his general theory of relativity to model the structure and dynamics of the universe.
with nothing about modern era.
There is also a question on talk page about the audio version being outdated (13 June 2012 (!)) - maybe it should simply be removed? Artem.G (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)