Talk:Mass–energy equivalence/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello. I'm going to have to fail this article GA nomination due to a number of issues. Here is a list of the main issues with the article:

• The biggest issue is the lack of references. There are large swaths of the article, including entire sections and many partial sections, that need references.
• Ref #3 (Einstein's proven right) deadlinks.
• Ref #17 (Okun) deadlinks.
• Refs #2, 15, 16, and 38 (all Einstein) are all forbidden links.
• Web references all need to have titles, publishers and access dates. They should never be left as bare links.
• Refs not in English need to be marked as such.
• The lead should be a summary of the entire article, with no new information introduced.

Please note that this is not a comprehensive list of issues. I have not reviewed images, prose, NPOV or completeness. I would suggest that the nominator (who, as far as I can find, has not made any edits to the article) ask some of the primary contributors to this article, if they are still active, to work with him in collaboration to bring the article to GA status. Then the article is free to be renominated for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is much better than a "good article" then. There is no need to modify it to fit some bureaucratic standard in order to get an affirmation.Likebox (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)