Talk:Nibiru cataclysm/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

By now I've read the article through once and it appears to be at or about GA-level, but I've not checked all the citations.

I'm now going to work my way through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. I may fix "minor" problems as I go, but if I don't I will list them here. This may take another day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Origins -

• This section looks OK so far. Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC) - I'm sorry to backtrack. Ref 9 (Fortean Times) is only partially cited. You've got the Journal's name, the article's title and the original pub. date; but not the Authors name. Pyrotec (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC) - I also checked out ref 17. Its (I checked Amazon.com) a book: its full title seems to be a bit longer than given in the article, i.e. The End of Days: Armageddon and Prophecies of the Return, and it would be helpful if the ISBN could be given in the citation. Pyrotec (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Refs fixed. Serendi^podous 17:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Other names -
  • Planet X -

• Well refs 16, 19 and 21 appear to provide verification of what is claimed, but I'm having trouble confirming: "However, nearly a century of searching failed to turn up any evidence for such an object (Pluto was initially believed to be Planet X, but was later determined to be too small).[20]". Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ref subbed. Serendi^podous 15:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'll try and get this review finished. Pyrotec (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Nemesis -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC) - I'm having trouble verifying the statement: "Believers in Planet X/Nibiru have often confused it with Nemesis,[23]". Ref 23 leads me [here], I'm not sure what the reference is: if it is one of those dated answered questions, that aught to be specifically stated, e.g. "Answered Tuesday, November 2, 2010" - I know it is not this one. Could it be ref 25?

Ref subbed. Serendi^podous 13:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Scientific criticism -

• This section looks OK.

• Conspiracy theories -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC) - Ref 45, Thomas O'Toole, seems to have a broken web link.

• Public reaction , Cultural influence & WP:Lead -

• These three sections look OK.

At this point, there are a few minor fixes needed on a few of the citations so I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

ref subbed. Any other citation fixes needed? Serendi^podous 16:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I've backtracked a bit so there are some new ones in Origins. Pyrotec (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An informative, well referenced article on this topic of "forthcoming doom, or not, depending on your point of view".

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   A few of the sources are blogs and/or personal websites. I'm accepting "Zeta Talk" as a WP:RS as that appears to the the "mouthpiece" of Nancy Lieder and it is being used as a source for Nancy Lieder's statements. Another one is Mike brown's Planets, but his Biography has him as the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy at the California Institute of Technology, since 1994 and his site is used as a source of information on planets. "Ask an Astrobiologist" is a NASA site.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on bringing the article up to GA standard. Pyrotec (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Serendi^podous 12:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)