Wikipedia:Peer review/Nibiru collision/archive2

Nibiru collision

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, while I have completely given up any hope of it ever being promoted, I would like to see it safe from deletion. While this article deals with a topic that has had remarkable impact on the internet and in the pseudoscientific community, the amount of what Wikipedia terms "reliable sources" on this topic (at least those that I have been able to locate) is oddly tiny. The issue of reliable sources has crashed and burned this article at previous peer and GA reviews. To that end, I have removed unreliable sources the only way I can; by deleting the information they refer to. This article is now cut down to the bleeding quick and I daren't remove any more information. So please, let me know where I can go from here.

Thanks, Serendi ^pod ous 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I apologize this has taken so long - I had been working on a review (unsaved) and my computer lost power and I lost my review. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

First off I think that this is much improved since the last time I read it, and I want to apologize if I in any way impied this should be deleted. I agree it is important to have it here, and do not think it should be deleted (let me know if it is ever at AfD and I will !vote to keep it). Having read the whole talk page and the two GANs, I must say you have my admiration and sympathies - the article seems to attract a variety of "true believers", and I do not understand the NPOV claims made in the second GAN. I think it could be a GA or perhaps even a FA in time.
I think the biggest issue is still the sources and wonder if it would be worth asking someone who is a reference expert (like Ealdgyth, perhaps) to take a look at the article and its sources and see what suggestions came up that way.
I noticed reading it that the refs had a lot of little typos and missing information, for example current ref 10 reads "M[a]rk Hazlewood's new position". 2009. http://www.geocities.com/transition7/links/HazelChange.html. Retrieved 2009-07-07." - missing a in Mark, and no publisher given (geocities). I understand that it is hard to find reliable sources. Because of this I also understand that it may be necessary to use primary sources like this in some cases.
In my previous PR I found a pretty reliable source (from the NY Times), but it is not used.

I already have a reliable source for the information in that article, which goes into more detail, but thanks anyway. Serendi ^pod ous 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were me, I would put it in and mention that her denial of Hale-Bopp even made the New York Times. I thought this was an article that needed every RS it could get? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Nancy Lieder has published books and I wonder if these would be seen as any more reliable than the website?

Given her pronounced inabilities as a writer I would doubt that. Also I would be unlikely to find such books where I live. Serendi ^pod ous 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that things like current ref 11 need links to the relevant web pages "^ "Nibiru" OR "niburu" (a common misspelling) and "2012" produce 419,000 hits on Google, whereas "planet X" and "2012" produce 324,000."

That was always going to be hard to source. Problem is, it's true. So I'll leave it blank for now.

Sorry what I meant was to link it to the actual search and give the access date (and now I see I did not search it quite right, but you get the idea). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other MOS issues - for exmaple I think the lead is a bit sparse and could have some more information from the article in it. I also note that WP:LEAD says to start the article either with an image or infobox. This has both, but neither is in the lead.

Moved image to the lead, though I don't think it really belongs there. Since this object doesn't exist, there are no images of it. Serendi ^pod ous 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about putting the infobox in the lead instead? It has the advantage of sayiong "Pseudoscientific concepts" across the top? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand the point of the "Criticism by Sitchin" - specifically which set the time for the last passing of Nibiru by Earth at roughly 600 BC, which would mean it would be unlikely to return in less than 1000 years.[32] This needs to be explained.

Revised. Serendi ^pod ous 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reading I saw one place where single quotation marks 'like this' were used instead of double quoteation marks "like this"
Refs need "p." for single page refs, not "pp."
I also note that the infobox refers to five people or groups in the Subsequent proponents section, but the article does not mention four of these. If primary sources are OK for Lieder / Zetatalk and Mark Hazlewood (sp?), I would think they would also be Ok to back these up.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies I have made some replies above. In response to your post on my talk page, I have looked again at WP:RS, particularly Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources, and Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources. I have also looked at Wikipedia:Fringe theories and Wikipedia:PSCI#Pseudoscience_and_related_fringe_theories and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources. As I read them they all seem to say that in questionable cases, a primary source can be used to back up a claim about the source itself. This is what I meant - if the subsequent proponents are notable enough to be in the infobox, then can't their own works be cited as a means of showing that they are also promoting this?

Looking at the Google Search, I found the Ask an Astrobiologist column at NASA helpful - I see it is cited once already, but wonder if it could be used more? It certainly seems reliable to me and the top 20 FAQs cover much of the same material as this article.

I will repeat what I said above - why not ask someone who is a respected checker of sources / references to look at the article and see what they think? Ealdgyth comes to my mind, but there may be others. Assuming such a review would approve most or all of the sources in the article now, that would be a major hurdle out of the way if this went to FAC (or perhaps even to GAN, though there the single reviewer means it is luck of the draw). I also sent you an email with some info. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]