Talk:Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact/GA1

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

Reviewer: Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk · contribs) 02:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to read the article. There is a lot to discuss, so figure about ten days (two weekends) before I have my comments ready. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

First read comments
Comment: This article is, to a large extent, speculative fantasy masquerading as serious discussion. Points of view are adopted that are verifiable in terms of being sourceable, but completely unverifiable in terms of accuracy or in terms of representing a consensus opinion. I will need to research Wikipedia policy on this.
 * Quickfail Criteria

Close reading now begins. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By the very nature of this article's topic, you are bound to get some "speculative fantasy" because this is not some hard-and-fast natural science where a Newtonian framework can give you the answer to life, the Universe, and everything. Rather, it is a mix of sociology, philosophy, popular culture, and natural sciences where the only tool to guide us is "speculative fantasy." However, it is not completely baseless speculation - reasons are provided for each potential impact, rather than impacts being stated. While this is imperfect, it is hardly pure talk considering we have to rely on deduction rather than observable facts.166.216.226.32 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In WP:NOT we have a list of What Wikipedia is not, among which are "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." So right at the start, we have a fundamental question of whether Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact (CIOEC) even counts as a Wikipedia article at all, much less a good one. I have chosen to give CIOEC the benefit of the doubt and am evaluating it as a good article candidate rather than as a candidate for deletion. I hope to be strict but fair, not letting my personal prejudices color my evaluation. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First statement - this is not an exercise in sockpuppetry. I just forgot to log in, hence the IP. Anyway, as for WP:NOTCRYSTAl, the policy discusses OR in predictions of the future, not well-sourced information. Although nobody can be 100% sure of the CIOEC, these sources are the best available and more accurate than your average Joe. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 21:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has many problems and I would argue that it does not meet the current GA criteria, however, WP:NOT, or more specifically, WP:CRYSTAL ("Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation"), does not apply here at all, so I would ask the reviewer to either drop that particular objection or show how CRYSTAL applies. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope that my review answers your objections satisfactorily. Meanwhile, could you add your own list of comments? Thanks – Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, because CRYSTAL has nothing to do with the problems you've observed. However, you've shown that the problems are so great that a quick fail is in order, IMO. I've been trying to point and guide Wer900 in the right direction since they started this article (and we've dealt with several problems before) but your review shows that the user is not properly reading the sources nor composing the material in an appropriate manner, and IMO, the user needs to slow down and start over.  Several times now, I've tried to address this, but the user often disregards my advice and proceeds along their own path.  What needs to happen here, is that the user should focus on rewriting this article in a reliably sourced outline form only and then proceed very carefully to rewrite it, paying very close attention to what the sources are actually saying rather than what the user wants the article to say. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am very reluctant to give quick fails, preferring to give benefit of the doubt in most circumstances. It is, for instance, entirely possible that the misunderstanding about Project Cyclops stemmed from the secondary/tertiary source that Wer900 used, and so is not Wer900's fault at all. Certainly the misunderstanding about chirality was traceable to the source. I checked over most of the other references accessible online, and Wer900 is, except for the few cases that I pointed out, commendably accurate. Even where the citation is not quite true to the source, I can easily see how the source could have been misleading. The grammar faults are easily fixed, as are the misuse of statistical terms. That leaves only the NPOV issues as difficult to fix. The problem is that it is nearly always possible to find a counter-opinion to every opinion, and makes satisfying NPOV criteria for an article like this very difficult. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I've been trying to get multiple users on board with writing this article, including User:Viriditas. Advice may help, but ultimately, the checks of the broader Wikipedia community are required. My goal with this GAR was to expose the article to the scrutiny of a Wikipedian with differing viewpoints from mine and with an eye for different qualities in the article. I was merely trying to make the article as comprehensive, exhaustive, and detailed as possible, and in that I ignored numerous grammar errors and muddled the statements of the sources I used. You can fail this nomination - I know what I have to do in order to improve this article now. But there's one point which I believe you made in error - the point of NPOV. The policy on maintaining a neutral point of view requires us to ensure that all significant viewpoints on a subject evidenced in a source are required to be presented in an article. If we were to merely state the opposite of what is stated in the article, we would not be furthering the neutral point of view policy, but would rather be merely adding our own original research to the article. Which is what I aim not to do, especially with such a contentious subject. If we were to construe the neutral point of view policy in the way that you did here, our articles would have something like this:
 * While it would be perfectly okay to say that specific groups are putting forward such fantasies as a flat Earth where sources exist, it goes against the spirit of the policy on NPOV to include the statement just because it is an alternative (though absurd) model for the geometry of the Earth. Similarly, this article should not include statements to the contrary of various sources simply because someone could come up with such statements; rather, such statements should only be included if a reliable source supports them. Other than that, I will follow through on your recommendations and seek a deeper peer review. Additionally, I will place a tag on this article, to ensure that editors maintain extra caution. I will tick off every comment you have made once it is done.  Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 01:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wer900 that Stigmatella aurantiaca's reading of NPOV is a bit off (and the GA criterion on broad coverage [3a] contradicts it), but the rest of his review is sound and quite helpful. Stigmatella aurantiaca's effort here should be applauded. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view does not mean that all points of view must be presented. From WP:WEIGHT, we read: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." The Flat Earth hypothesis is not a significant viewpoint and merits no mention at all. If it is not practical to track down all significant viewpoints, as seems to be the case here, one needs to be careful to identify the selected guesses, speculations or opinions as such and to identify their particular sources. In most cases, the addition of minor caveats to your original wording would be completely acceptable. For example:
 * "Billingham (2000) has speculated that a civilization which is far more technologically advanced than humanity is also likely to be culturally and ethically advanced as well, and would therefore be unlikely to conduct astroengineering projects which would cause harm to civilization, such as Dyson spheres which completely enclose stars and capture all energy coming from them, even though such projects would be well within their capability."
 * This wording warns the reader that it is not necessarily the majority opinion that technologically advanced civilizations are likely to be culturally and ethically advanced. My own guess is that there are more people siding with Shostak/Bhathal than siding with Deardorff/Sagan, although I personally am an optimist and agree with the latter. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This wording warns the reader that it is not necessarily the majority opinion that technologically advanced civilizations are likely to be culturally and ethically advanced. My own guess is that there are more people siding with Shostak/Bhathal than siding with Deardorff/Sagan, although I personally am an optimist and agree with the latter. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review part 1: the easy stuff (grammar errors, errors of fact, POV, misuse of technical terms, unreliable references)
I have a fair number of items here, but after a while you will see that most of my objections fall into a small number of categories. A day or two of work will clean these up.


 * Introductory paragraphs
 * Intro is completely without references
 * "However, as the nature of extraterrestrial civilizations is not known, and contact with any such species has not yet taken place, it is impossible to state with absolute certainty what the result of extraterrestrial contact will be for humanity."
 * Sentence needs to use subjunctive mood.
 * I think the usage of the indicative is proper; I am not stating opinions or emotions on a given fact, but rather making statements of fact. This requires the indicative. Contact with extraterrestrials has not happened, period. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Background
 * Search for extraterrestrial intelligence
 * "To detect extraterrestrial civilizations with radio telescopes, one must identify an artificial coherent signal as opposed to various astrophysical phenomena which also produce radio waves."
 * as opposed to => against a background of
 * Done. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "In the 1970s, Project Cyclops, a government funded program designed to quickly detect extraterrestrial signals, was funded by NASA.[2] However, following the project's failure, NASA drastically reduced funding for SETI programs, which have since turned to private donations to continue their search."
 * Scientific/historical error. Project Cyclops was a study to investigate how SETI should be conducted. It was not an actual program to detect signals. It produced a highly publicized report that influenced the direction of SETI research for decades to come.
 * You have probably mixed up Project Cyclops with Project Ozma
 * Made it clear that Project Cyclops was a report whose recommendations were not implemented. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * POV problem. Assuming you meant Project Ozma, I have never heard of Project Ozma referred to as a failure. It studied only two stars, Tau Ceti and Epsilon Eridani, for a period of 150 hours. Nobody seriously expected positive results from such a limited initial study. It served as an inspirational first step, influencing scores of subsequent studies.
 * Not Project Ozma. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "However, following the project's failure, NASA drastically reduced funding for SETI programs, which have since turned to private donations to continue their search."
 * Original research? Synthesis? Since Project Cyclops was in no way a failure, and since Project Ozma was not a NASA funded project, I have no idea how you came up with this statement.
 * Clarified as stated above. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Arecibo message, sent to the globular cluster M13 after the failure of Project Cyclops."
 * See remarks above concerning NPOV
 * Again, clarified, as stated above. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "NASA launched the Kepler spacecraft in 2009 to search for extrasolar planets,[3] and, in 2006, the European Space Agency launched COROT to search for exoplanets.[4]"
 * Please reverse order to match chronology.
 * Done
 * "As of March 2012, Kepler has detected 61[5] of the 770 known exoplanets."
 * known => confirmed
 * Done. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Following the discovery of the planet, the SETI Institute resumed a new and targeted search for an intelligent extraterrestrial civilization[7] with funding from the United States Air Force.[8]"
 * Please explain "targeted"
 * Targeted to Kepler candidates. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The new discoveries of planets, in particular potentially habitable planets, have enabled SETI and METI programs to refocus the search for extraterrestrial planets. In 2009, A Message From Earth was sent to the Gliese 581 system..."
 * METI is not a search. Please separate SETI from METI
 * Used wording to encompass both disciplines. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "In addition to radio-based methods, some projects, such as SEVENDIP, are attempting to utilize other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum in order to search for extraterrestrial signals."
 * Surely you can indicate that SEVENDIP is an optical search?
 * References?
 * The cited reference does show it is an optical search. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "While there have been several false positive signals detected throughout the history of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, to date, no evidence has been found that these signals are indeed of intelligent origin."
 * References? Examples?
 * NPR reference and Wow! signal example given. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Systems for the assessment of the potential impact of extraterrestrial contact
 * "Various scales, such as the Torino Scale and the Rio Scale, have been devised in order to better gauge the types of contact an extraterrestrial civilization and the consequentiality of each type."
 * Sentence structure.
 * Added "with". Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * " The ultimate impact of extraterrestrial impact can be said to depend on factors of the nature of the discovery, the nature of the extraterrestrial beings, and where they are located with respect to the Earth.[12]"
 * Sentence structure. ''"On factors of the nature of the discovery..." is poor wording.
 * Text "factors of" removed. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Specific factors include whether communication was conducted through radio, the information content of a message, whether it was discovered as part of a specialized SETI effort or through general astronomical observations, or whether the civilization is detected unintentionally through mechanisms like radiation leakage from astroengineering installations, among other factors.[13]"
 * Sentence structure
 * Pronoun antecedent of the word "it" is unclear. "It" can't be referring to "specific factors", nor can "it" refer to "communication" nor to "information content."
 * "detected unintentionally"? Surely you mean unintentional SIGNALING. Detection of these unintentional signals would certainly be intentional on our part.'
 * Changed "it" to "such a message, removed "unintentionally," appended "as opposed to a deliberately sent message" before "among other factors." Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "...but rather sees events of scientific significance as being more representative of how humanity will be impacted by extraterrestrial contact.[14]"
 * Be more specific. Steven Dick compares contact with the transmission of Greek science and the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions.
 * Done. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The distance between humanity and the contacting civilization has also been used to assess the cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact."
 * Careless wording. "The distance has been used to assess???" What does THAT mean???
 * Clarified to mean spatial distance. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "A study, involving polling of United States and Chinese university students conducted by Vakoch and Lee and published in the journal Acta Astronautica in 2000, provides factor analysis[note 1] of participants..."
 * Misuse of statistical term. Factor analysis is not performed on participants.
 * "The studies also show smaller, but still large, weighted correlations of participants believing that extraterrestrial contact may either conflict with or enrich their personal religious beliefs."
 * Misuse of statistical term. Correlation refers to statistical relationships involving dependence between two random variables or two sets of data.
 * Factor analysis clarified to mean that it is performed on data, and correlation clarified to show a relation between religiosity and certain beliefs. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Contact scenarios
 * "Various models exist in scientific literature as well as science fiction with regard to how extraterrestrial civilizations will interact with humanity."
 * "with regard to" is poor choice of words. You might try a word like "predicting".
 * "With regard to" replaced with "which attempt to predict," to show these are attempts. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Some theories predict that an extraterrestrial civilization may be advanced enough to no longer use biology, instead living inside advanced computers."
 * What would be the implications of this for contact?
 * No sources (that I can access) exist for this topic strictly. This may be of some value but will ultimately provide no more than a sentence or two, as it is mostly arguments for a postbiological stage of evolution being possible. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The implications of discovery are highly variable, based on what level of aggressiveness the civilization interacting with humanity has,[18], the type of ethics the civilization possesses,[19] and also based on how much humans and the extraterrestrial species have in common biologically.[20]"
 * Sentence parallel structure needs to be improved.
 * You mean "dependent on", not "based on".
 * Parallel structure added, "based on" changed to "dependent upon." Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "This will govern the type and the amount of dialogue which can take place between the two species.[20]"
 * Unclear pronoun antecedent. What is "this" referring to? It is a singular word, so it doesn't match "The implications of discovery" nor the list of "based on" scenarios.
 * "This" replaced with "these factors"


 * Benevolent civilizations
 * " In order to do so, various methods, including intervention only to avert catastrophe, intervention by advice and consent of world leaders, and forcible corrective action."
 * Sentence fragment.
 * Fixed. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The first of these methods would involve only limited intervention over time in the affairs of humanity in order to stop events which may destroy its civilization completely, such as nuclear war or asteroid impact.[23]"
 * Unclear pronoun antecedent. Does "its" refer to the extraterrestrials, the methods, or humanity?
 * See Strunk & White III.16
 * How can asteroid impact be a consequence of human activity requiring forcible intervention?
 * Grammar fixed, as for asteroid impacts, these extraterrestrials could force us to build asteroid-defense systems, making it, well, forcible. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "This is likely to be of an informed-consent nature, with much advice being offered but nothing being implemented unless world leaders are willing to accept what is given by the extraterrestrial species.[23]"
 * Please learn to use subjunctive mood, here and in many other places in this section.
 * Added subjunctive. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "It is unlikely that the prevention of immediate dangers and preventing future catastrophes from occurring will be conducted through radio, as these methods would demand constant surveillance and quick action.[23]"
 * Unclear subject of subordinate clause. "prevention of immediate dangers" is not a "method".
 * "These methods" => "such actions." Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "However, cultural cooperation may take place through radio or a space probe in the Solar System, as radio waves can communicate advanced cultures and technologies to humanity.[23]"
 * Radio waves can communicate technologies, but they cannot communicate advanced cultures.
 * Fixed. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Malevolent civilizations
 * "... it would have to transcended war in order to avoid self-destruction."
 * Verb form.
 * Fixed. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Political leaders have also approached the prospect of the human reaction to alien contact."
 * What does "approached the prospect of the human reaction" mean??? Looking at the dictionary definitions for the word "approach", I see nothing that makes sense in conjunction with the word "prospect".
 * Fixed.


 * Equally-advanced and more-advanced civilizations
 * " In the specific case of humanity, interactions of this type with an extraterrestrial civilization would likely take place through radio..."
 * Interactions of WHAT type? The immediately preceding sentence deals with "the technological advancement and energy usage of a civilization."
 * "... given the infeasibility of interstellar spaceflight for species at a similar technological level to that of the human race."
 * Non-sequitur. Nothing in the preceding sentences limits this discussion to Type I contacts.
 * Fixed. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "A civilization which is far more technologically advanced than humanity is also likely to be culturally and ethically advanced as well, and would therefore be unlikely to conduct astroengineering projects which would cause harm to civilization, such as Dyson spheres which completely enclose stars and capture all energy coming from them, even though such projects would be well within their capability.[31]"
 * Non-sequitur. Why would any civilization wish to expend the resources to construct a Dyson sphere around our Sun in the first place?
 * Meeting energy needs. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Consequently, such civilizations would not readily give humanity the knowledge required to build such devices.[31]"
 * More non-sequitur.
 * "Despite the caution that such an advanced civilization would have in dealing with the nascent civilization of humanity, the late SETI researcher Carl Sagan has imagined..."
 * Verb form: "had imagined" rather than "has imagined".
 * Fixed. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "An advanced extraterrestrial civilization may not be coming to Earth in order to expand an already-burgeoning empire, as with their level of advancement they may have achieved an equilibrium, in which they only colonize a small number of stars and attempt to maximize efficiency rather than maintain massive and unsustainable imperial structures.[33]"
 * Run-on sentence. You need to break it up.
 * Bad parallel structure. Surely you are contrasting an effort to maximize efficiency against EXPANDING massive and unsustainable imperial structures? The word "maintain" doesn't make sense in terms of the sort of contrast that you are trying to present.
 * Other parallel structure failures. Needs the word "to", i.e. "...attempt to maximize efficiency rather than TO maintain..."
 * See Strunk & White III.15''
 * Resolved. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "This is in contrast to the classic Type III Kardashev civilization, which has access to the energy output of an entire galaxy and does not impose any limits on its future expansion.[33]"
 * Poor wording. A civilization short of Type III does not IMPOSE limits on its future expansion. Rather, a civilization short of Type III Kardashev has resource limits on its future expansion.
 * That's exactly what I am trying to get across, they will not artificially impose limits. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Additionally, terrestrial life may be so different from extraterrestrial life that extraterrestrial civilizations may not use humans as a food source,[2] specifically because the chirality, or "handedness," of molecules used by terrestrial biota may differ from those used by extraterrestrial beings.[24]"
 * Scientific inaccuracy; use of unreliable references. Chirality is certainly the least of the problems faced by an extraterrestrial species attempting to use humans as a food source. For example, even if an alien species used amino acid-based proteins, the choice of amino acids in its proteins would be vastly different than the 21 amino acids used in terrestrial organisms, and many of the terrestrial amino acids would be toxic to the aliens. By way of analogy, the toxicity of various poisonous mushrooms to humans is due to novel amino acids;(Drehmel and Chilton, 2006) likewise, the human disease of Lathyrism is due to consumption of a close analogue of glutamate. Terrestrial lipids would likely be as digestible to extraterrestrials as motor oil. Terrestrial carbohydrates would cause bloat, at the very least. It is virtually inevitable that human beings would be poisonous to alien metabolism, regardless of chirality issues. It does not matter that your cited reference only mentions chirality. In this matter, your cited reference is massively unreliable.


 * Extraterrestrial artifacts
 * "Despite the fact that faster-than-light travel is being seriously discussed by scientists, the enormous amount of energy required to achieve superluminal speeds means that sublight robotic probes will still have an advantage for various applications.[34]"
 * We have absolutely know idea how to achieve superluminal speeds in practice, so please qualify your statement so that is is clear that PROPOSED mechanisms for achieving superluminal speeds require enormous amounts of energy.
 * "Such information may include an Encyclopædia Galactica, containing the wisdom of countless extraterrestrial cultures, or perhaps an invitation to engage the extraterrestrial civilization diplomatically.[34]"
 * Why would an invitation require a physical artifact?
 * If you're targeting the information based on what the civilization is. You don't want to send an invitation to join a Galactic Federation to the Roman Empire. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "...so that they may be ultimately discovered by another civilization and not die along with the civilization which originally created them, instead being perpetuated by whichever group ultimately receives the message.[34]"
 * Misrepresentation of cited reference. Surely no alien species would expect a recipient species to PERPETUATE its "cultures, values, religions, sciences, technologies, and laws", nor is this a suggestion of the cited reference, which only suggests that the civilization might wish to ensure that a record of its culture, values and philosophy would survive.
 * "Civilizations aiming to ensure the success of other populations of verifying the presence of extraterrestrial species may also use probes, due to their ability to store information on long timescales in a way that radio waves cannot, their ability to create a strong signal within a star system which can be unambiguously identified as being intelligent in origin, rather than being dismissed as a UFO or natural phenomenon, and an ability to modify any signal sent based on environmental factors in a reasonably short period of time.[35]"
 * Long run-on sentence with several secondary issues: unclear pronoun antecedents, poor parallel structure, and subject-verb mismatches due to parallel structure issues.
 * See Strunk & White III.15 and III.16
 * "Rather than reveal the location of a radio beacon powerful enough to signal the whole galaxy and risk its being compromised, decentralized robotic-probe beacons need not give any information which an extraterrestrial civilization does not wish to be given to others.[35]"

What is the antecedent of "its"? The location? The radio beacon? The galaxy? Oh, you mean the postcedent word "civilization" buried within the subordinate clause beginning with "which"...''
 * Use of postcedents (also called cataphora) is a highly discouraged practice by such authorities as Henry Watson Fowler, Ernest Gowers, and Strunk & White.
 * See Strunk & White III.16
 * Clarified. Not a postcedent, antecedent was "radio beacon." Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Further implications of contact
 * Theological
 * "... in light of previous events and individuals in the history of science, such as the theory of evolution and Giordano Bruno, which have challenged established dogma, it is likely that existing religions will adapt similarly to the new circumstances.[27]"
 * Parallel structure would be improved if you paired up theory of evolution with Giordano Bruno's IDEAS. Theory of evolution is neither an individual nor an event. Bruno was not an event.
 * Parallelized. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Political
 * "...as scientists begin to attempt to decipher the message and learn what the true impact of contact will ultimately be.[32]"


 * "Contact with a powerful extraterrestrial civilization has often been likened to occasions where one powerful civilization destroyed another, such as the arrival of Christopher Columbus and Hernán Cortés into the Americas and the subsequent destruction of the indigenous civilization and way of life.[41]"
 * Radio contact? Face-to-face contact?
 * Contact generally. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "However, it may not even be this rift in technology which could cause the demise of the human civilization, as the mere fact that one has been "discovered" by an extraterrestrial civilization could cause psychological effects which could destroy a civilization, as has happened in the past on Earth.[15]"


 * Fixed.


 * Legal
 * "Thus, due to a lack of full human rights for an extraterrestrial being, it could be owned and killed in accordance with applicable law.[27]"


 * Fixed.


 * Scientific and technological
 * "However, as humanity deciphers more of an extraterrestrial message, and the message does indeed contain a large amount of information, humanity's own science and technology may advance to an enormous extent, giving us access to a galactic heritage perhaps predating the human race itself.[27]"

For example, what is "giving us access"? Humanity? The message? Humanity's own science and technologh?''
 * Fixed. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "As an example, the improvements in agricultural technology of the past century have rendered the services of thousands of farm laborers useless, before society has had the ability to retrain these workers for jobs still present in the new society.[46]"
 * Incorrect verb tenses.
 * "It is possible that contact with an extraterrestrial civilization thousands of times more advanced than humanity could cause a much greater shock than this, or anything which has been experienced by humanity before.[46]"
 * Pronoun antecedent unclear. By "this" do you mean improvements in agricultural technology from the sentence before?
 * "Through the discovery of extraterrestrial life in any form, intelligent or non-intelligent, humanity could gain a greater insight into the nature of life on the Earth and enhance our conception of how the tree of life is organized.[47]"
 * Run-on sentence with bad parallel structure. What is the subject of the verb "enhance"?


 * Ecological
 * "An extraterrestrial civilization may inadvertently bring with it pathogens or invasive species to Earth, which it and its biosphere respectively are immune to being harmed by.[24]"
 * What is the pronoun antecedent of "it and its biosphere"?
 * "Rather than directly harming humans, though, a pathogen may use terrestrial livestock or plants as its hosts, causing indirect harm to the human species.[24]"
 * Omit needless words. "though" is needless.
 * See Strunk & White III.13


 * Omit needless words.


 * All done. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review part 2: the hard stuff (neutral point of view)
This is the stuff that is going to require hard work. A lot of the article involves pure speculative guesswork. It may be documented guesswork, but it is still guesswork.

A relevant extract from What Wikipedia is not reads as follows:
 * Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. [My emphasis]

Two relevant extracts from Neutral point of view read as follows:
 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. [My emphasis]
 * Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. [My emphasis] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to the Flat Earth belief.

The basic problem is this. Many of the guesswork speculations of what could happen could be stated in an exact opposite fashion and still represent plausible scenarios. The opposite viewpoints expressed by James Deardorff and Carl Sagan on the one hand, versus Seth Shostak and Ragvir Bhathal on the other hand in the Malevolent civilizations section are a good example, and have been handled well in this section. Indeed, so well balanced are these paragraphs, that they seem not to belong in a Malevolent civilizations section. Should the Benevolent civilizations and Malevolent civilizations sections be merged into a single Benevolent versus malevolent civilizations section?

On the other hand, there are other sections that show little balance of viewpoint. Here are some examples of what I mean:

AND SO ON AND SO FORTH...

The fundamental issue that I have with the speculations presented in this article, is that except for the two paragraphs contrasting Deardorff and Sagan versus Shostak and Bhathal, the speculations are single-sourced, and I have absolutely no reason to believe that they represent a fair representation of available viewpoints. To repeat: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

If you can fix the easy issues above and this major issue, you may have the makings of a Good Article. I think it might be best if you go to peer review for help; if so, I'll see if I can give assistance. You can look at the edit history of Folding@home and Talk:Folding@home to see what I did to help out a future possible FA candidate. – Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, what is your opinion on the current state of the article? I don't want to make any unilateral decisions on this. Wer900 has made good progress on this article, fixing most of the grammar mistakes (disagreeing with me on several issues, but that's OK). To my eyes, NPOV is still an issue, but you and I have disagreed on the interpretation of NPOV, and there is nothing that says that I have to adhere to an absolute timeline. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is that within a reasonable amount of time, I believe that Wer900 can address all of my NPOV objections. So I am asking you what your objections may be. Moving targets would not be fair. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As for NPOV objections, I cannot mention opposite scenarios for extraterrestrial contact unless reliable sources indicate such a scenario. So far I have found no sources for such opposite views, and thus it is not permissible for me to include such views. If sources were available, I would gladly add such views, but such is not the case. If you can find sources for these views, just tell me. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 22:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What I am suggesting is that you add minor caveats to your original wording. For example:
 * "Billingham (2000) has speculated that a civilization which is far more technologically advanced than humanity is also likely to be culturally and ethically advanced as well, and would therefore be unlikely to conduct astroengineering projects which would cause harm to civilization, such as Dyson spheres which completely enclose stars and capture all energy coming from them, even though such projects would be well within their capability."
 * This wording warns the reader that you have absolutely no idea whether this speculation represents a majority opinion that technologically advanced civilizations are likely to be culturally and ethically advanced, or merely the opinion of the single source that you have managed to uncover.
 * Remember: "Avoid stating opinions as facts ... [O]pinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources ..." Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why, certainly. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 23:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added caveats like you have asked me to do. However, if something is grounded in certain scientific, historical, or legal fact, I have not attributed it as one could ask any expert in the field and, assuming they held consensus views, one would get a similar answer. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 00:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Things are looking good from where I stand. I'm basically just waiting for Viriditas's opinion, since he has worked with you in the past and probably has suggestions that he would like to see implemented. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there have been no opposing comments by any other reviewers, I have advanced the status to GA. I do recommend that you submit the article to peer review, however. In the Good Article lists, the article stands rather uncomfortably among a list of entries of truly outstanding group scholarship. There is good, which your article is, and then there is good, if you know what I mean. Good luck on your future efforts! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thank you greatly for helping me improve this article and promoting it. Good luck in your future efforts on Wikipedia. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 01:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)