Wikipedia:Peer review/2012 phenomenon/archive4

2012 phenomenon
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it failed its previous FAC and I would like to ensure that all issues that could derail its next FAC have been resolved.
 * Previous peer review
 * This peer review discussion has been closed..

Thanks,  Serendi pod ous  09:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article was not promoted at its previous FAC nom in October 2010, primarily because of (a) sources/citation issues and (b) shortage of significant comments on content. It would be good to have a summary of how the sources and citation questions have been addressed. Personally I found the article interesting and (at least in the parts I could follow) well written. However, my first thought is that much of it is very hard for the general reader to understand. The following are the notes that I made during my readthrough; some of these are very minor points which can easily be resolved, but the general readability issue is my overriding concern.
 * "In 1966, Michael D. Coe more ambitiously asserted in The Maya that "there is a suggestion ... " Two points here. First "more ambitiously" seems like an editorial intervention. Secondly, there is disjunction between "asserted" and "there is a suggestion". Assertions are hard, suggestions are soft. Rephrasing advised.
 * In the next section, Coe's "there is a suggestion" becomes an "apocalyptic interpretation". Again, I think the language needs to be changed.
 * "We know the Maya thought there was one before this..." I thought it was established that there were three before it.
 * The concepts of "distance dates" and "Distance Numbers" is not in my view adequately explained
 * "Either way, this date is 3 quintillion times the age of the universe, demonstrating that not all Mayans considered the 5,125-year cycle as the most important." Whose viewpoint is this?
 * Why capitalise "Solar System"?
 * I also think that further explanation is required, in the Galactic alignment section, relative to the relationship between "one degree every 72 years", "approximately every 2,160 years", and "26,000 years". I also found the information in the penultimate paragraph of this section hard to grasp.
 * General prose presentation point: avoid single-sentence paragraphs ("Other New Age ideas" and "Other alignments")
 * "An apocalyptic reading of Jenkins's hypothesis has that,..." is awkward-sounding
 * I don't understand the relevance of the Alien invasion section to the rest of the article.

I hope these comments will be of some help in the reshaping of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)