378:. Right now the criticism section reads like a selection of juicy quotes from famous astronomers and physicists who bothered to talk about the subject. This is not the ideal way to present this information. In fact, I generally encourage editors to avoid criticism sections entirely and rather incorporate the facts into the text. Phil Plait has pointed out a few facts regarding a proposed Nibiru. There is no reason that we must say "Astronomer and debunker Phil Plait has pointed out on his website that such an object so close to Earth would be easily visible to the naked eye." Rather, we can just say, "Such an object so close to Earth would be easily visible to the naked eye." and reference Phil Plait, who is an expert on the subject and is a reliable source. Such plain facts should not be qualified as though they were only the opinions of the "debunkers".
294:. The problem here is, of course, that this particular "prediction" is demonstrably not going to happen, so the "certainty" associated with the future event is essentially completely lacking. What should we call this proposal then? Doomsday "speculation" or doomsday "prophecy" might be more appropriate, but each of these terms have their own problems as well. I am not sure myself how to resolve this issue, but it needs to be resolved. The definition should not imply that there is any possibility whatsoever that Nibiru will collide with Earth. At the same time, the definition must remain neutral. It's a difficult issue, but one that has been handled by others and I'm sure that editors can come up with a solution. Other problematic phrases used in the article include 1) " ancient astronaut theorist" (the term "
367:
possible that primary sources will wax eloquent on ideas that probably should be excluded from the encyclopedia since they are simply the proposals and quotes from non-notable and unreliable sources. The heavy reliance on Zeta-talk sources is of particular concern. What would be better is to find sources which are independent of ZetaTalk but mention the same ideas. This would establish the prominence of the idea independent of the promoters.
386:
approach to the ideas and present, immediately, the facts which both support and refute the Nibiru-beliefs. Rather than segregate the article into a he-said/she-said free-for-all that reads something like an organized clearinghouse of all points made about Nibiru collision beliefs, try to gain some
349:
in the exposition sections: One of the first things to do in these articles is to explain the idea. There is an attempt to provide comprehensive coverage of every person who has made claims about Nibiru collisions, but I do not see any evidence that the claims were written about in deference to the
277:
It is extraordinarily difficult to write a neutral article about a subject that is plainly pseudoscientific such as this. The editors here should be commended for their efforts. However, I have seen a number of issues that lead me to believe that this article does not yet rise to the standards of a
390:
I want to reiterate that I think the editors have done a stupendous job of gathering data, sources, and finding all sorts of mentions of Nibiru collision ideas. I do not think writing this article is an easy task, but I hope the points I have enumerated above explain why I, regretfully, must fail
366:
are being referred to at a much higher rate than secondary or tertiary sources. The BEST sources to use when describing ideas such as this are not primary sources because there is no way to ensure that the ideas have received any vetting. Especially with topics such as this one, it is entirely
321:: "Several astronomers and physicists have criticised this idea on basic scientific grounds." This does not get across the true nature of the implausibility of this feared collision. The marginalization of expert opinion on the subject is the result and the
442:
Articles on controversial topics can be both neutral and stable, but this is only ensured if regular editors make scrupulous efforts to keep the article well-referenced. Note that neutrality does not mean that all points of view are
325:
to "Several astronomers and physicists" is problematic. Obviously there are more than simply "several astronomers and physicists" who have criticized the idea. This needs to be made more clear in order to satisfy the goals of
354:
of each. That is to say, while we have claims from Lieder, Hazlewood, Pana Wave, etc., it is unclear by what criteria inclusion or exclusions of these sources was done. A good rule of thumb to follow is
359:. Ideally, the editors at this page should try to determine which ideas have the most prominence in the venues of interest and should find independent sources verifying this.
88:
I am your friendly GA-reviewer. Let me say first, this article is of extreme importance in our goal to provide comprehensive coverage of topics related to astronomy.
428:
382:
Ultimately, I think a good approach to this article would be to start from scratch and try to follow the claims from a cultural-historian perspective. Take the
73:
138:
This is probably the most difficult thing to get right for this article, and on this criteria I give it a quick-fail. My rationale is listed below.
69:
54:
317:
in the lead, there is one sentence that indicates the implausibility of a Nibiru collisions that could be is what I would describe as
342:
rather than a simple statement of facts, (e.g. "There is no scientific evidence that Nibiru exists as described by the proponents.")
46:
132:
387:
narrative continuity and consistency throughout the article. This will greatly mitigate the NPOV problems that I see here.
282:
There seems to be some issues with wording. The very first sentence uses the phrase "doomsday prediction" and links to the
404:
260:
241:
222:
143:
120:
93:
456:
Articles about participants in the event, or other articles related to the event should be reviewed in detail.
109:
400:
256:
237:
218:
188:
139:
116:
89:
62:
17:
351:
290:
indicates that the term is normally reserved for statements or claims that are "more certain" than a
339:
208:
303:
299:
252:
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
371:
356:
346:
331:
327:
322:
318:
314:
158:
39:
168:
23:
383:
363:
375:
335:
307:
198:
178:
233:
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
362:
Use of sources in the explanation sections: Part of the issue right now is that
408:
264:
245:
226:
147:
124:
97:
374:
in the criticisms and accusations section. Again, it is always a good idea to
287:
291:
283:
394:
If you would like any more feedback, please contact me on my talkpage.
295:
154:
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including
115:
The article has a number of reliable sources and is well-footnoted.
447:
covered; instead no point of view should be given undue weight.
298:" needs to be qualified. Obviously, ancient astronauts are not
131:
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see
306:
may be appropriate.) 2) "claim" and its derivatives (see
81:
50:
334:. I would encourage the writers to consider carefully
278:"Good Article". Let me enumerate a few of them here:
108:
The article completely lacks reliable sources – see
338:since what seems to be occuring in the lead is an
357:WP:FRINGE#Reporting on the levels of acceptance
8:
255:The article is not about such an event.
427:was invoked but never defined (see the
413:
376:assert facts rather than quote opinions
7:
236:The history does not indicate this.
419:
302:in the proper sense, but the term
31:
323:WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution
133:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
286:disambig page. Our article on
217:No obvious problems observed.
1:
345:Appropriate application of
313:Appropriate application of
473:
409:00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
265:00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
246:00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
227:00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
148:00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
125:00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
98:00:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
24:Talk:Nibiru collision/GA1
370:Problematic reliance on
110:Knowledge:Verifiability
372:particular attribution
18:Talk:Nibiru cataclysm
423:The named reference
391:this GA nomination.
194:or large numbers of
340:appeal to authority
300:scientific theories
214:, or similar tags.
304:conspiracy theory
22:(Redirected from
464:
457:
454:
448:
440:
434:
433:
432:
426:
418:
401:ScienceApologist
397:Most sincerely,
257:ScienceApologist
238:ScienceApologist
219:ScienceApologist
213:
207:
203:
197:
193:
187:
183:
177:
173:
167:
163:
157:
140:ScienceApologist
117:ScienceApologist
103:Quickfail review
90:ScienceApologist
86:
77:
58:
27:
472:
471:
467:
466:
465:
463:
462:
461:
460:
455:
451:
441:
437:
424:
422:
420:
415:
364:primary sources
275:
211:
205:
201:
195:
191:
185:
181:
175:
171:
165:
161:
155:
105:
67:
44:
38:
36:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
470:
468:
459:
458:
449:
435:
412:
384:Ronald Numbers
380:
379:
368:
360:
343:
311:
274:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
250:
249:
248:
231:
230:
229:
152:
151:
150:
129:
128:
127:
104:
101:
87:
35:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
469:
453:
450:
446:
439:
436:
430:
417:
414:
411:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
392:
388:
385:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
358:
353:
348:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
279:
273:NPOV concerns
272:
266:
262:
258:
254:
253:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
234:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:
210:
200:
190:
180:
170:
160:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
136:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
113:
111:
107:
106:
102:
100:
99:
95:
91:
85:
84:
80:
75:
71:
66:
65:
61:
56:
52:
48:
43:
42:
33:
25:
19:
452:
444:
438:
421:Cite error:
416:
399:
396:
393:
389:
381:
308:WP:WTA#Claim
276:
189:unreferenced
82:
78:
64:Article talk
63:
59:
40:
37:
51:visual edit
352:prominence
288:prediction
429:help page
347:WP:WEIGHT
332:WP:WEASEL
328:WP:WEIGHT
315:WP:WEIGHT
209:clarifyme
34:GA Review
296:theorist
292:forecast
284:doomsday
445:equally
319:weasely
159:cleanup
74:history
55:history
41:Article
336:WP:ASF
169:wikify
83:Watch
16:<
425:refs
405:talk
330:and
261:talk
242:talk
223:talk
199:fact
179:NPOV
144:talk
121:talk
94:talk
70:edit
47:edit
431:).
407:)
310:).
263:)
244:)
225:)
212:}}
206:{{
204:,
202:}}
196:{{
192:}}
186:{{
184:,
182:}}
176:{{
174:,
172:}}
166:{{
164:,
162:}}
156:{{
146:)
135:.
123:)
112:.
96:)
72:|
53:|
49:|
403:(
259:(
240:(
221:(
142:(
119:(
92:(
79:·
76:)
68:(
60:·
57:)
45:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.