Talk:2012 phenomenon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: • Ling.Nut 05:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on article Talk about inconsistent refs. I won't nail you for this at the GA level, but please do fix before you go to FAC. In fact, please do fix them even if you don't go to FAC.
There are tools on FAC for checking links and dab pages. The dab page checker came up with 5 dabs. The link checker also identified some issues. But again, I won't fail GA for these.
I confess, I've been doing some very serious fiddling with my screen settings lately (so caveat emptor). But File:Milkyway Swan Panorama.jpg just looks like a tiny black box with a couple purple dots on it; it is not illustrative of any point. You may wanna revisit all the images to make sure they are sized well. i know that forcing image size is frowned up by many editors; perhaps you may need to actually make a second version of this image that is not so terribly large, so the thumb won't end up so tiny. But look at all images.
In the same vein, I don't see alt text for the images. Big no-no for FAC.
Just poking around for fact-checking, I found note 46 "Jenkins claimed that the classical Mayans anticipated this conjunction and celebrated it as the harbinger of a profound spiritual transition for mankind" points to a page that has no mention of anything resembling the article text. I would throw a hissy fit at FAC. You need to go back through every cite and make sure that he source actually says what the article says it says. Moreover, mmmm. I guess that page is OK as source of its author's opinions, but I wouldn't use it for anyhting else...
You're gonna hafta work hard to establish reliability for some of those sources. I wikilinked Mike Brown and Ed Krupp in the author section of two cites; this kinda thing will help smooth the road. Be prepared to answer questions about the reliability of every single source, nonetheless... e.g., "What makes Universe Today reliable?"
The paragraph beginning "The December 24, 2011..." is a bit consensual soup-ish (see my user page for explanation). It needs a bit more coherence.. have you seen Krupp's chronology of the meme at The Great 2012 Doomsday Scare? I dunno if his dates are correct or not, but the explanation is coherent...
It seems that Coe later backed off from his earlier doomsday assertions. At least the Internet says so. ;-) You may wanna verify this.
The WP:LEDE needs work. No need to include "alleged prophecies from extraterrestrial beings" among possible sources; do need to add a sentence listing the various doomsday scenarios etc. In general, the lede should summarize the main points of the article. If a subheading exists, it is often reasonable to mention that topic in the lede.
The section about the movie leaves a bit to be desired. I don't mean that it should be expanded too much; I mean that its connection to the article tpoic is implied but should be stated explicitly. Etc. • Ling.Nut 07:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will help out correcting these after I submit my senior thesis. I am wondering whether the movie deserves much more than a sentence. Shii (tock) 17:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The movie section has two probs: first, it's probably too long. Second, it needs a sentence that explicitly states that it references/draws on/whatever the 2012 phenom. I think two or at most three sentences should do the trick, but those two or three should be well-written... As for the question that Serendipodous left on my talk: mainly, fix the prose issues. Fix the lede to closely reflect/summarize the structure/content of the article. Clarify the paragraph that I thought was a bit jumbled. Fix that one ref I found that doesn't seem to cover the info in the article (see above). Fix the movie section as described above – I dunno if it needs its own section, or if it should be the first item mentioned in a Popular culture section... most of the doomsday scenarios as described in the article are pop culture... I leave it to your editorial judgment how to handle this. Later! • Ling.Nut 05:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]