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
@ ComplexRational, R8R, and Double sharp: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
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
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:
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
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
English astronomer Fred Hoyleis 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
@ Ymblanter: This may or may not apply to your work, but I thought it was appropriate to let you know of this. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 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
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
List of possible secondary sources
– John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
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
@ ComplexRational, R8R, and Double sharp: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
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
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:
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
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
English astronomer Fred Hoyleis 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
@ Ymblanter: This may or may not apply to your work, but I thought it was appropriate to let you know of this. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 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
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
List of possible secondary sources
– John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply