Wikipedia:Peer review/2012 phenomenon/archive4

2012 phenomenon[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

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.

Thanks, Serendi ^pod ous 09:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]