Wikipedia:Peer review/2012 Doomsday Prediction/archive1

2012 Doomsday Prediction

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review for feedback on how it reads and anything that may have been left out.

Thanks, Rosemary Regello (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I bring no special knowledge of the topic to this review, and I can't say whether it is complete or not or whether it does the subject justice. I found it interesting, and it reminded me of a white-bearded cartoon figure holding up a sign reading, "The End is Nigh". Eventually, he will be right, so the fear that "eventually" might mean next Wednesday never goes away. I wonder if biologists have anything to say about "end is nigh" behavior. Just a thought. Here are a few suggestions, mostly about form rather than content.


 * The images are good but in some ways problematic. Photo credits are not normally included in the captions. In most cases, images except the lead image should be set to "thumb" size without a forcing pixel size. Image:Orion-nebula.jpg has incomplete licensing information. It should include a direct link to the NASA source page, so that fact-checkers can check the source. Also, the image is tagged for lack of categories. Similar problems occur on the licensing page for Image:Long Valley Caldera.jpg. The source link for this one connects to the USGS article in Wikipedia rather than to the source document.
 * The lists in the lead, in the Prophecies section, and in the "Scientific forecasts" section should be turned into straight prose.
 * Bolding is normally used in the main text only for the title words of the opening sentence of the lead. The bolding in the "Scientific forecasts" section and in the notes should be rendered in plain letters rather than bold.
 * The citations should include the author, title, publisher, date of publication, and url and access date (for on-line sources). A convenient way to organize the notes is to use the "cite" family of templates at WP:CIT. You can copy-and-paste these into your article or sandbox and add specific data to the general form. A further explanation of citations can be found at WP:CITE.
 * I'd advise against repeatedly linking the same terms. In the lead, for example, Mesoamerican Long Count calendar is linked twice, and I see other examples throughout. I would also not include links in the "See also" section that are already linked in the main text.
 * A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph and every set of statistics, every unusual claim, and any claim that is likely to be challenged. The first paragraph of the "Precession-alignment theory" gives no source for some fairly complicated material, for example.
 * It would be helpful to include the locations of the Yellowstone caldera and the Long Valley caldera in the main text.
 * I may have missed it, but although the Fifth World and Fourth World of the Hopi are mentioned, what about the first, second, and third? It would be helpful to include a brief explanation.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestions are good and I would implement them if the article hadn't been taken over by a few people who are using it to discredit the premise and discourage readers from even spending time on the page. Every time I try to correct the misinformation and sarcasm, one of them deletes my changes within hours, sometimes minutes. A request for protection was denied. Wikipedia apparently puts the feelings and sensitivities of propagandists ahead of actually conveying factual information, as if this were a message board. For that reason, it seems pointless to bother with the formatting and other editing particulars. The article itself is useless as a source of credible information. In fact, what's going on here sort of mirrors some of the prophecies I read, which is rather alarming...HRIN (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that difficulties have arisen. Sometimes when a dispute occurs, walking away from it for a while solves the problem. It might be that in a month or two, the other parties will have found new things to occupy them, and you can take up where you left off. The review will be here if you should ever want it, and the work you have already done is archived, not lost. Finetooth (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)