Black hole

Review commentary

Messages left at Phil Boswell, Bryan Derksen, Dbundy, Space, Physics, and Astronomy. Sandy 16:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was appointed into FA on 2004-07-30 (diff).

• First of all, there is a lack of references, even the reference list containst 404 links. Some direct citations aint inline citated as they should be.
• In several places, the prose is lacking logic, and when you read it, you get the feeling that they are repeating them self.

  From observations in the 1980s of motions of stars around the galactic centre, it is now believed that such supermassive black holes exist in the centre of most galaxies, including our own Milky Way. Sagittarius A* is now generally agreed to be the location of a supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. The orbits of stars within a few AU of Sagittarius A* rule out any object other than a black hole at the centre of the Milky Way assuming the current standard laws of physics are correct.

• The section "Mathematical theory" contains at first a formula, that is undefined (only later formulas is defined). The first formula is not explained what it describes.
• Most of the section "Alternative models" feels like OR.
• Also, on a note, that at the moment has been a edit war, that I think is still going on (see talk page for more info), therefore the page aint stable at the moment (don't know if this criteria is applyable to an already approved FA).

_→AzaToth 00:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—I'd like to see an audit of the prose. Things like:
  • "above 1.44 solar masses"—"Above" is not the right preposition. Occurs a number of times.
  • "the first and second edition"—"EditionS".
  • "gave the solution for"—I know scientists get away with "give" in this context, but it's pretty inelegant. Produced? Provided? It occurs a number of times.
  • Back holes can't be avoided IN some collapsing objects?
  • "Shortly thereafter"—avoid the second word.
  • Too much usage of "some" and "certain", which are vague.
  • "Other observed effects are narrow jets of particles at relativistic speeds heading along the disk's axis."—"Heading"?
  • "is that any infalling matter will eventually"—Spot the redundant word.

Please don't just fix these issues; the whole text needs a careful run-through. Tony 09:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and possible OR (1c), prose quality and logic (1a), and stability (1e). Marskell 11:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove - diff since nom, no one seems to be working on it, the article is undercited and still has the aforementioned prose problems. Sandy (Talk) 21:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove - Whole paragraphs of text lack citations. LuciferMorgan 21:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove—Difference since Sandy's last comment. Tony 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]