Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012 phenomenon/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:03, 27 May 2011 [1].

---

2012 phenomenon

2012 phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/2012 phenomenon/archive1
• Featured article candidates/2012 phenomenon/archive2

Nominator(s): Serendi^podous 10:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC), User:Cosmic Latte, User:PL, User:Shii, User:HRIN

I am nominating this for featured article because all the issues raised at its previous FAC have been fixed, and it has subsequently been peer reviewed, and then, unofficially, peer reviewed again. Some issues which may be of interest to reviewers are covered on the article's talk page. Serendi^podous 10:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• "13th b'ak'tun", "thirteenth b'ak'tun": consistency please.
• "pushes the Sun's position very slightly farther through the Milky Way": I don't understand.
• It's not my call when I've got my copy-editor hat on, but I'm not sure if you need the last subsection, 2012_phenomenon#Planet X/Nibiru. I take it from the description in this article that these ideas have very little support.
  • Wait, I've poked around a little and it seems a fair number of people continue to talk about this. In that case, keep the subsection, but include at least one reference (perhaps from the hatnoted article) that shows that people are still talking about it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Inserted ... one more thing. "NASA has compared fears about 2012 with those about the approaching new millennium in the late 1990s, suggesting that an adequate analysis should preclude fears of disaster.": I'd recommend deleting this from the lead. It's not reflected in the text of the article, and I don't think it's a fair representation of what NASA is saying. That is, they don't make a comparison between Y2K fears and 2012 fears, they just start off with a throwaway line about Y2K, then devote the whole article to 2012. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These (minus one) and these are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

• Should specify how long a baktun is.
• Seems a bit underlinked - "Palenque, Usumacinta, and La Mar" not linked, Mayan stelae (FA) should be linked somewhere.
• "In India, the guru Kalki Bhagavan has promoted 2012 ..." - one (short) sentence para.
• The Mayan maths & the astronomy are rather beyond me, & I haven't looked at the sources (chicken, I know..)
• an extra image or two would help - Bugarach & its peak look pretty (or even a French riot policeman).

As far as I can tell, which isn't very far, seems to meet the criteria otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article says that a baktun is 144,000 days.

That's not very helpful! It's 395 years or something.

Which Mayan maths and astronomy do you mean?

Well most of the article, but I just don't follow that stuff. Sentence by sentence it all seemed to make sense. Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Serendi^podous 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support though I notice another one sentence para in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose on sourcing at this time

• "precession causes a slight shift in the Sun's apparent position in the Milky Way." - source?
• A significant number of citations to book sources do not include page numbers - this is required for verifiability. If you're citing the existence of the book only then you don't need page numbers, but citation 67 for example includes no page numbers despite sourcing a direct quote
• See MOS:QUOTE for correct formatting of embedded quotes
• Citation formatting needs cleanup - some shortened citations use p/pp while others don't, multi-page PDFs need page numbers, etc
• Spotchecks found instances of close paraphrasing. For example "To render December 21, 2012, as a doomsday event or moment of cosmic shifting, she says, is" replicates "To render Dec. 21, 2012, as a doomsday or moment of cosmic shifting, she says, is" from the source almost verbatim
• What makes this a reliable source? This? Check out WP:SPS for guidelines on self-published sources like blogs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you tell me which ref the first source is citing? Because I didn't add it and don't know where it is. Serendi^podous 08:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Current citation 17. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 13:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to one of Nikkimaria's points and some Comments

• The scientific side of the astronomical information all checks out to me. Support there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridia (talk • contribs) 06:52, April 13, 2011
• Disagree with Nikkimaria's first point about precession: that statement is an extension of the explanation of the effect of precession moving the apparent position of the Sun in the sky that is made in the previous paragraph. I think it counts as acceptable further explanation and does not require a source.
• General comment on source reliability for other reviewers: A lot of the astronomical info will require sources equivalent to Sky and Telescope: it is info that NASA's outreach or an amateur astronomy magazine would publish, but would not be discussed in professional literature, (such as the gravitational effect of the central supermassive black hole on our Solar System).
• Though if you don't want a website, a textbook like Roy & Clarke could be cited for the precession paragraph.
• First mention of "Mayanist" comes well before the explanation of what they are.
• "supposedly supported by observations that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening" I'd change this cite to the Nature Geoscience article the pop sci article is discussing.
• "the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration now predicts that the solar maximum will peak in 2013, not 2012" I'd update this link and statement, since the current solar cycle is not matching the models that well.
• "the event was initially slated for 2003, but this date was abandoned after it passed without incident." Cite here would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridia (talk • contribs)

comments: I've addressed most of the glaring issues raised above. I've page numbered the majority of book refs or pdfs but several are, as you say, citing the existence of the book/pdf and nothing else. I've gone through recent cites from NOAA but they all still say May 2013. Serendi^podous 08:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in periods

fixed. Serendi^podous 05:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Images themselves appear unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Question What makes Defesche 2007 (current ref 2) a WP:RS? Typically, MA theses are not considered a reliable source. Exceptions are possible though. Is this one of them? It certainly is good study, that has been quoted by his advisor, and maybe should be published, but it still is a masters thesis.TR 12:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter where the information came from, as long as it's been vetted and cleared for publication by a reliable site. Skepsis is the Norwegian affiliate of CSICOP, which makes it about as rock solid a skeptical site as you're likely to find. Serendi^podous 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't in that case Skepsis be listed as the publisher for the ref? TR 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 14:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments :

• Article title seems vague. There are going to be lots of 'phenomenon' in 2012 that don't come into this article. Why is '2012 phenomenon' preferable to say for example '2012 eschatology'?
• Parts of the last two notes aren't referenced. Would be better if notes could be numbered/lettered for easy of communication.
• Typo found in alt "a photoraph of the Milky Way"
• Three dablinks found: Aquarius, Magnetic pole, Pisces
• Reference 71 for financialpost.com no longer seems to contain the information required.
• Reference 37 has no page number Not required as book as a whole.

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Most issues resolved.
• re:title. If you look at the article's move history, there have been many discussions regarding what to call it. "2012 phenomenon" is the title chosen after years of discussion and it seems that it follows consensus.
• The final note falls under WP:CALC

Serendi^podous 16:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Striked resolved issues. Not entirely convinced on the article title situation but it isn't an actionable task so I've striked it.
• How can 'Sun's winter solstice position first fully crossed into the Milky Way around the year 800 AD' be WP:CALC? I believe some reference is required. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You can determine the approximate angular width of the Milky Way. You can determine the speed at which the Sun precesses. You can determine the ecliptic longitude of the Sun at the winter solstice. You know Sun is 0.5° wide. You know the direction the Sun is travelling in. So you can calculate from that when the Sun first entered the Milky Way. Of course, the figure should be rounded, as it can only ever be approximate. Serendi^podous 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

My previous limited experience with WP:CALC left me with the impression that would be to much of a calculation, however I may have got the wrong idea of how CALC is interpreted. So I've asked for a second opinion here. 19:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't take that information down. It has to be there, or the article makes no sense. And there's no way I'm going to find a source that will pass RS on this. So you have to decide whether the FAC can still continue with this in it or not, because it can't be taken out. Serendi^podous 07:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that it is some sort of original research.. So it cannot stay in it's present state. I suggest the sentence can be removed. The article cannot pass the Featured article criteria while containing WP:OR. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down. It's about as far as I can go without locating an RS. I hope that's enough. Serendi^podous 06:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen this link from the Cornell University "Curious About Astronomy" webpage? It seems to be a RS (Cornell Uniuversity astronomers) and says in part Defining an exact boundary for the plane of the Milky Way is tough, but it's at least 10-20 degrees wide across much of the sky, meaning that the solstice can be described as being "in the plane of the Milky Way" for 700-1400 years! To put it another way, the winter solstice that just past (2005) was only 0.1 degrees away from where it will be in 2012, a distance smaller than the size of the Sun itself (which is about 0.5 degrees in diameter). In any case the Sun crosses the plane of the Galaxy twice every year as we orbit around it, with no ill effect on Earth. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's definitely a help! Thanks. Serendi^podous 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Striked the issue as resolved. Good work. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this a while ago and have just re-read it carefully. I am leaning towards support, but would like to see some fairly nit-picky points addressed first, which I outline below.

• Inclusive language, use "humans" or "humanity" or "people" for "men" in The Popol Vuh describes the gods first creating three failed worlds, followed by a successful fourth world in which men were placed.?
• How recent is "recently rediscovered"? There is a mention in this article of the Long Count calendar from 1957, over 50 years ago, which does not seem that recent to me. Although the Calendar Round is still used by some Maya groups in the Guatemalan Highlands, the Long Count was employed exclusively by the classic Maya, and was only recently rediscovered by archaeologists.[25] Perhaps give the approximate date instead? "and was only rediscovered by archeologists in the [1950s? latter half of the 20th century?]"
• Would the Tortuguero inscription be clearer in a table with two columns, with the original text on the left and translation on the right? Seems like it would take less room that way.
• Is the capitalization "Proleptic" or "proleptic"? (both are used in this article)
• I am not sure about tense - I understand that we are before 2012 now, so future tense makes some sense, but this sentence is about books written in the past and all the other sentences in the paragraph it begins seem to be in past tense (so should it also be past tense?): In 1975, the ending of b'ak'tun 13 became the subject of speculation by several New Age authors, who believe it will correspond to a global "consciousness shift". (i.e. change to "...believed it would correspond to...")

Many are still alive, and still believe this. Serendi^podous 21:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also not sure what tense Aveni dismisses all these authors.[45] should be (past, since the ref is from 2009?) So Aveni has dismissed all these authors.[45]
• Does this need a ref? In Western astrological traditions, precession is measured from the northern hemisphere's spring equinox, or the point at which the Sun is exactly halfway between its lowest and highest points in the sky. Presently, the Sun's spring equinox position is in the constellation Pisces and is moving back into Aquarius. This signals the end of one astrological age (the Age of Pisces) and the beginning of another (the Age of Aquarius). Is the song a WP:RS? ;-)
• Tighten? According to this hypothesis (termed the Shiva Hypothesis), mass extinctions are not random, but recur every 26 million years.
• Should the Geomagnetic reversal section make explicit reference to 2012 somehow? So something like Another idea [associated with 2012] involves a geomagnetic reversal (often incorrectly referred to as a pole shift by proponents),...
• Would "predicted" be better than "slated" in This idea has appeared in various forms since 1995; the event was initially slated for 2003, but this date was abandoned after it passed without incident.[94]?
• Wikilink NASA in the Nibiru section?
• I understand that "in 2012" in the following sentence means that the predicted arrival date of the spacecraft is 2012, but I do not think the grammar is correct. In December 2010, an article, first published in examiner.com and later referenced in the English-language edition of Pravda[101] claimed, citing a Second Digitized Sky Survey photograph as evidence, that SETI had detected three large spacecraft en route to Earth in 2012.[102] Perhaps en route to Earth and due to arrive in 2012.? Or would splitting this sentence be clearer / better? So In December 2010, an article, first published in examiner.com and later referenced in the English-language edition of Pravda[101] claimed that SETI had detected three large spacecraft en route to Earth. The article, which cited a Second Digitized Sky Survey photograph as evidence, said the spacecraft would arrive in 2012.[102]
• The Notes are identified by letter in the text, but are not so identified in the Notes section itself. I think thet they should be for clarity.
  • Thanks for yoiur work on this article, which looks much better than it did last time I saw it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Other issues resolved. Serendi^podous 21:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have switched to support. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are all those books needed in "Further reading", shouldn't most of what's there be covered in the article, and what will prevent that from becoming a trivia farm? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I care not a jot for that section, so it can go. Serendi^podous 18:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support by a vicious bird-eating spider who calls himself "Cryptic C62".

• "A New Age interpretation of this transition postulates that during this time," During which time, the 5,125-year cycle, or December 21? I assume it's the latter, in which case "during this time" should probably be replaced with "on this date".
• "Scholars from various disciplines have dismissed the idea of catastrophe in 2012." So they're saying that there won't be any earthquakes, volcano eruptions, or tsunamis in 2012? All of these things could be considered catastrophes, particular by those who end up buried under the rubble/ash/water. I think a better phrasing would be "Scholars from various disciplines have dismissed the idea that such a cataclysmic event will occur in 2012."
• Why isn't there an In popular culture or In fiction section?

All attempts to add such sections have been deleted. Serendi^podous 20:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrm. I imagine it can be rather frustrating to have to deal with pop-culture deletionists, but it just seems absurd to me that there exists a film about this very phenomenon, but its only mention is in the See Also section. The existence of mainstream cinema/literature about this subject shows that it is a much more widespread (mis)belief than just a handful of New Age weirdos. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I made that very point last year. To no effect. Serendi^podous 19:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Cryptic of the requirement of an in culture section. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also be fine with a culture section. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

added. Serendi^podous 07:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans, I will take a look at the new prose right now. If anyone gives you flak for adding the section, I will gladly stand by your side and defend the obvious necessity of its existence. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Half of these emails are from outside the U.S." What is the purpose of this statement? --Cryptic C62 · Talk

Don't know. The start of that paragraph says there are hundreds of books and hundreds of website. Then focuses three sentences on just one person. That is UNDUE WEIGHT. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC) done

I've had a go at reworking it. Serendi^podous 06:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So what still needs to be done? It's been 11 days since the last comment and all listed issues have been resolved. Serendi^podous 16:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is an issue with the article per se, I checked earlier today and no FACs had been promoted since May 6th. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Comment Are you sure that it doesn't lack major or minor facts? TGilmour (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would you assume that it lacks facts? Serendi^podous 22:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

TGilmour - opposes have to be based on actionable requests, otherwise they can be ignored by the FAC director or the FAC delegates. I do not see how your oppose is actionable. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I just said that there may be available some facts that aren't mentioned in the article. TGilmour (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There undoubtedly are; for instance, it isn't mentioned in the article that the Earth is round, or that the sky is blue, or that snow is cold. These facts aren't mentioned because they aren't relevant. Unless we have some idea of what these facts you refer to are, then we can't judge whether or not they are relevant. Serendi^podous 12:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Understood. TGilmour (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.