Wikipedia:Peer review/2012 phenomenon/archive2

2012 phenomenon
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is now relatively comprehensive and I was wondering what was needed to bring it up for promotion.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks,  Serendi pod ous  18:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read through this and it looks pretty good. The sources include some blogs and self-published websites. These might be OK for some purposes but they don't establish notability for the ideas they contain. What is to stop anyone creating a website on 2012 and expecting it to be reported in this Wikipedia article? The citations were a bit of a mix of manual and template and many of the websites missed off the accessdate -- so I've moved more to the cite templates. Hope you don't hate the templates :-) Colin°Talk 21:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Self-published sources are kinda difficult to get around, because most third party commentators on the subject, being rational, find themselves all at sea over some of the concepts, and often get them wrong. Even though they've been studying the 2012 phenomenon first-hand for years a lot of them still doesn't understand the black hole alignment, because they can't think irrationally enough to grasp it. As for blogs, well most of the cited blogs are by noted professionals in their fields, such as Mike Brown and David Stuart.  Serendi pod ous  22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Some of this seems familiar after my review of the Nibiru collision article, so apologize if I repeat some of the same things here. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As before, I would strongly suggest getting someone who is an acknowledged reference checker for FAC ( comes to mind, there may be others) to look at this well before submitting it to GAN or FAC
 * First off it seems to me that this article should have more reliable sources available in theory as there are such for the Mayan calendar and texts, the film, etc. Given that I was a bit surprised that there are several places that need refs - all of the following:
 * Schele and Freidel note that creation date was inscribed at Coba as .... or 3 quintillion times the scientifically accepted age of the universe.
 * Author Terence McKenna independently arrived at a New Age prediction for 2012, which he later merged with the Mayan calendar end date after a discussion with Argüelles.
 * The first three paragraphs of the Galactic alignment section
 * The alignment described by Jenkins is only an apparent alignment caused by the Earth's wobble on its axis and has nothing to do with Earth's current location in the galaxy.
 * the last three sentences about the film
 * The lead seems a bit sparse - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but it does not seem to me to be the case here.
 * There are a few places I would provide more context to the reader - for example could the rough locations of the archeological sites be mentioned ''The Tortuguero site [in southernmost Tabasco, Mexico] dates from the 7th century AD and consists of a series of inscriptions in honor of the contemporary ruler.
 * There are also several places that use time words that are likely to change - for example in the section on the film there is this The picture currently on the website's "About" page shows the European Union headquarters building in Brussels as the IHC's own premises. but currently should be replaced with something like "as of October 2009" There are other uses of currentl or similar words that need to be looked at
 * Similarly I would add an access date for anything used as a ref with an external link in it, so for example current ref 59 is just "^ See the fictional publicity for the film by Sony Pictures Inc." with a link to the website
 * Other than that I thought this seemed generally well written and neutral.