Talk:Nibiru cataclysm/GA1

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

I am your friendly GA-reviewer. Let me say first, this article is of extreme importance in our goal to provide comprehensive coverage of topics related to astronomy. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Quickfail review

 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Verifiability.
 * The article has a number of reliable sources and is well-footnoted. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * This is probably the most difficult thing to get right for this article, and on this criteria I give it a quick-fail. My rationale is listed below. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * No obvious problems observed. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * The history does not indicate this. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * The article is not about such an event. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV concerns
It is extraordinarily difficult to write a neutral article about a subject that is plainly pseudoscientific such as this. The editors here should be commended for their efforts. However, I have seen a number of issues that lead me to believe that this article does not yet rise to the standards of a "Good Article". Let me enumerate a few of them here:


 * 1) There seems to be some issues with wording. The very first sentence uses the phrase "doomsday prediction" and links to the doomsday disambig page. Our article on prediction indicates that the term is normally reserved for statements or claims that are "more certain" than a forecast. The problem here is, of course, that this particular "prediction" is demonstrably not going to happen, so the "certainty" associated with the future event is essentially completely lacking. What should we call this proposal then? Doomsday "speculation" or doomsday "prophecy" might be more appropriate, but each of these terms have their own problems as well. I am not sure myself how to resolve this issue, but it needs to be resolved. The definition should not imply that there is any possibility whatsoever that Nibiru will collide with Earth. At the same time, the definition must remain neutral. It's a difficult issue, but one that has been handled by others and I'm sure that editors can come up with a solution. Other problematic phrases used in the article include 1) " ancient astronaut theorist" (the term "theorist" needs to be qualified. Obviously, ancient astronauts are not scientific theories in the proper sense, but the term conspiracy theory may be appropriate.) 2) "claim" and its derivatives (see WP:WTA).
 * 2) Appropriate application of WP:WEIGHT in the lead, there is one sentence that indicates the implausibility of a Nibiru collisions that could be is what I would describe as weasely: "Several astronomers and physicists have criticised this idea on basic scientific grounds." This does not get across the true nature of the implausibility of this feared collision. The marginalization of expert opinion on the subject is the result and the WP:FRINGE to "Several astronomers and physicists" is problematic. Obviously there are more than simply "several astronomers and physicists" who have criticized the idea. This needs to be made more clear in order to satisfy the goals of WP:WEIGHT and WP:WEASEL. I would encourage the writers to consider carefully WP:ASF since what seems to be occuring in the lead is an appeal to authority rather than a simple statement of facts, (e.g. "There is no scientific evidence that Nibiru exists as described by the proponents.")
 * 3) Appropriate application of WP:WEIGHT in the exposition sections: One of the first things to do in these articles is to explain the idea. There is an attempt to provide comprehensive coverage of every person who has made claims about Nibiru collisions, but I do not see any evidence that the claims were written about in deference to the prominence of each. That is to say, while we have claims from Lieder, Hazlewood, Pana Wave, etc., it is unclear by what criteria inclusion or exclusions of these sources was done. A good rule of thumb to follow is WP:FRINGE. Ideally, the editors at this page should try to determine which ideas have the most prominence in the venues of interest and should find independent sources verifying this.
 * 4) Use of sources in the explanation sections: Part of the issue right now is that primary sources are being referred to at a much higher rate than secondary or tertiary sources. The BEST sources to use when describing ideas such as this are not primary sources because there is no way to ensure that the ideas have received any vetting. Especially with topics such as this one, it is entirely possible that primary sources will wax eloquent on ideas that probably should be excluded from the encyclopedia since they are simply the proposals and quotes from non-notable and unreliable sources. The heavy reliance on Zeta-talk sources is of particular concern. What would be better is to find sources which are independent of ZetaTalk but mention the same ideas. This would establish the prominence of the idea independent of the promoters.
 * 5) Problematic reliance on particular attribution in the criticisms and accusations section. Again, it is always a good idea to assert facts rather than quote opinions. Right now the criticism section reads like a selection of juicy quotes from famous astronomers and physicists who bothered to talk about the subject. This is not the ideal way to present this information. In fact, I generally encourage editors to avoid criticism sections entirely and rather incorporate the facts into the text. Phil Plait has pointed out a few facts regarding a proposed Nibiru. There is no reason that we must say "Astronomer and debunker Phil Plait has pointed out on his website that such an object so close to Earth would be easily visible to the naked eye." Rather, we can just say, "Such an object so close to Earth would be easily visible to the naked eye." and reference Phil Plait, who is an expert on the subject and is a reliable source. Such plain facts should not be qualified as though they were only the opinions of the "debunkers".

Ultimately, I think a good approach to this article would be to start from scratch and try to follow the claims from a cultural-historian perspective. Take the Ronald Numbers approach to the ideas and present, immediately, the facts which both support and refute the Nibiru-beliefs. Rather than segregate the article into a he-said/she-said free-for-all that reads something like an organized clearinghouse of all points made about Nibiru collision beliefs, try to gain some narrative continuity and consistency throughout the article. This will greatly mitigate the NPOV problems that I see here.

I want to reiterate that I think the editors have done a stupendous job of gathering data, sources, and finding all sorts of mentions of Nibiru collision ideas. I do not think writing this article is an easy task, but I hope the points I have enumerated above explain why I, regretfully, must fail this GA nomination.

If you would like any more feedback, please contact me on my talkpage.

Most sincerely,

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)