Jump to content

Talk:Alexei Starobinsky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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 toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexei Starobinsky/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sgubaldo (talk · contribs) 02:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 07:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will take me a bit. An initial brief look indicates that it looks good, although there are a few uncited statements that may need cleaning. More to come. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this up. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comments:
  • Please include the title of his PhD thesis. Ideal would be a link to a pdf as well, but this may not exist.
  • If you mention Hawking radiation, you have to say something about whether it is real, as I believe this is still being debated. There is a lot more material on this, including on the page on it. You need to carefully say something.
  • Overall it is well constructed and well sourced.
But, it is not obvious to me whether everything in Alexei Starobinsky#Research is accurate enough, and I have to wonder about neutrality of the interpretation. I said wonder because I do not know enough about the area. I think it is appropriate that I ask for a second/expert opinion at WP:Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Ldm1954 (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TheSandDoctor talk 00:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source: Gribbin, John (1996). Companion to the cosmos. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 221. ISBN 978-8-17-371245-6 – via Internet Archive. and Guth, Alan (1997). The Inflationary Universe: the Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. New York: Basic Books. p. 229. ISBN 978-0-20-132840-0 – via Internet Archive.
Improved to Good Article status by Sgubaldo (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Sgubaldo (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]