Talk:Nibiru cataclysm/GA3

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments
By now I've read the article through once and it appears to be at or about GA-level, but I've not checked all the citations.

I'm now going to work my way through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. I may fix "minor" problems as I go, but if I don't I will list them here. This may take another day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Origins -
 * This section looks OK so far. Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC) - I'm sorry to backtrack. Ref 9 (Fortean Times) is only partially cited. You've got the Journal's name, the article's title and the original pub. date; but not the Authors name. Pyrotec (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC) - I also checked out ref 17. Its (I checked Amazon.com) a book: its full title seems to be a bit longer than given in the article, i.e. The End of Days: Armageddon and Prophecies of the Return, and it would be helpful if the ISBN could be given in the citation. Pyrotec (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Refs fixed.  Serendi pod ous  17:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Other names -
 * Planet X -
 * Well refs 16, 19 and 21 appear to provide verification of what is claimed, but I'm having trouble confirming: "However, nearly a century of searching failed to turn up any evidence for such an object (Pluto was initially believed to be Planet X, but was later determined to be too small).[20]". Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ref subbed.  Serendi pod ous  15:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'll try and get this review finished. Pyrotec (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nemesis -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC) - I'm having trouble verifying the statement: "Believers in Planet X/Nibiru have often confused it with Nemesis,[23]". Ref 23 leads me [here], I'm not sure what the reference is: if it is one of those dated answered questions, that aught to be specifically stated, e.g. "Answered Tuesday, November 2, 2010" - I know it is not this one. Could it be ref 25?


 * Ref subbed.  Serendi pod ous  13:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Scientific criticism -
 * This section looks OK.


 * Conspiracy theories -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC) - Ref 45, Thomas O'Toole, seems to have a broken web link.


 * Public reaction, Cultural influence & WP:Lead -
 * These three sections look OK.

At this point, there are a few minor fixes needed on a few of the citations so I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

ref subbed. Any other citation fixes needed?  Serendi pod ous  16:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I've backtracked a bit so there are some new ones in Origins. Pyrotec (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on bringing the article up to GA standard. Pyrotec (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Serendi pod ous  12:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)