Talk:2012 phenomenon/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: &bull; Ling.Nut 05:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. &bull; Ling.Nut 07:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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! &bull; Ling.Nut 05:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)