Talk:Nibiru cataclysm/GA2

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Ok as far as quick fail criteria are concerned, on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
I'm not sure what you mean by "in context". These are just the ramblings of a lonely, slightly eccentric middle-aged woman; they're not really in any context. Just because this idea has grown out of all proportion to its origins doesn't mean it is linked to any grand cultural patterns. It's just a sad artifact of the power of the internet. And I don't think I could find any reliable sources to suit your criteria. Very few "reliable sources" bother to go into this sort of topic in depth. Michael Heiser is one of the few academically credited people to bother to debunk Sitchin, for instance. Most of the citations to fringe cites are merely to show that they are there, and that they do say what they say. They're not meant as valid sources of information. Serendi pod ous  04:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * I did make a couple of copy-edits. I am concerned that a large section of the first section, Origins, of the article is devoted to an in depth account of various statments on her site.
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * This is the difficult bit when writing about fringe theories. I fixed one dead link but ref #19 is dead.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Ref #1 although debunking Lieder's theories is not RS; ref #2 is not RS; Thwe refernces to the zetatalk site would be better dealt with by a simple summary of her beliefs and a reference to the site; ref #6 is not RS; ref #14 is a forum not RS; refs 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 are not RS; likewise 29, 37, 39, 42; I am not sure about 33 .  I rather agree with the comments in the earlier review regarding teh whole NPOV thing.  They apply here in that alrge sections of the artciel are sourceed to clearly non RS websites.
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * unresolved at present
 * b (focused):
 * unresolved
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Not convinced of this.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I don't find the image useful, why is it there? this mythical planet doesn't exist.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I recommend a through rewrite to put this theory in conetxt, much as suggested in teh first GAn review. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I don't find the image useful, why is it there? this mythical planet doesn't exist.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I recommend a through rewrite to put this theory in conetxt, much as suggested in teh first GAn review. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I recommend a through rewrite to put this theory in conetxt, much as suggested in teh first GAn review. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the theory is just the ramblings of an eccentric. I note that she appears to describe the object as Planet X, who decided it was to be called the Nibiru collision? I just do not see how this article as it stands can ever become a good article. If few reliable sources have commented on it then it is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Th previous reviweer laid out in detail the problems so I won't repeat them. My instincsts are to fail this nomination, but I am going to ask for other opinions. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2000+ people are logging onto this page every day. It's notable because there is enough disinformation out there for millions to actually believe it, and to be frightened of it. Roland Emmerich is making a movie about it for God's sake. As to why it's called Nibiru, that is its most common name now, and the one most people will be looking for. Lieder herself initially called it Nibiru, as well as Planet X, though I believe Planet X was first, and the Nibiru connection was made later. I'm a bit confused as to your citing the other guy; he actually told me the problems had been resolved and that I should renominate the page. Still, I don't think I can find enough third party sources to satisfy your criteria, so I'd be happy to let it go.  Serendi pod  ous  15:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, We are making no progress here so I will not list this at the present time. If you do not agree with tis decision I recommend that you take this to a community reassessment at WP:GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)