Wikipedia:Peer review/David Meade (author)/archive1

David Meade (author)

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm close to getting it to GA-status (not to mention it's B-Class) and I thought it's a great idea for a peer review so I can get feedback on the article. It needs to meet the criteria but I think I need a little more. If you guys can write some feedback and comments on what you think about the article (and what I can add to it), I appreciate it. Thanks, LovelyGirl7 talk 19:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Feedbacks

What do you guys think about the article? Do you think it's ready for GA status? --LovelyGirl7 talk 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

From Sgerbic

Reading through now, "would possibly start followed by a millennium peace after." should it say "would possibly start followed by a millennium OF peace after.?Sgerbic (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes @Sgerbic:. I just did. --LovelyGirl7 talk 03:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You used "asserted" twice very close together, #9 and #10. I would remove "which be that as it may" as it sounds like an opinion. I've made a few fussy changes, someone is more than welcome to correct me, I'm not the best at grammar. This guy has got his 15-minutes of fame, we don't know his name, nothing he has predicted has ever come true, and he was covered by the Washington Post. Must have been a really slow news week, pretty sad state our world is in when this person gets a WP page. SIGH But he seems noteworthy (thanks Washington Post!) I didn't check on any of the citations, just read the body of the article.Sgerbic (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: I did not think he really needed his own article either; my initial thought was that the "2017 revival" section in the Nibiru cataclysm article was more than enough coverage for him, but LovelyGirl7 really seemed convinced that he needed an article, so I decided to go along with it. My thought is that, if he makes more predictions, we may be glad we kept it and, if he fades into obscurity (as he probably will), we can easily nominate it for deletion a few years down the line. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

And if he gets a prediction correct, then we will be really happy. Personally there is one on that list that I really really really wish would come true, but alas I can't make wishes come true. :-) So yeah, agree, don't think he "deserves" a page, but the media made him notable, which is really sad.Sgerbic (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is really pathetic, but I will defend the press by saying that, in these days of the internet, writing about him to debunk his theories may have been the best decision, since, regardless of whether they wrote about him or not, his theories would have still spread online, and it is probably better that people read about him from a news article debunking him than from crazy people on the internet who believe every word he says. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: it’s unlikely Meade will ever get one correct. The guy is another Harold Camping and a false prophet (and stupid idiot). I changed asserted to claimed (I meant to say). @Katolophyromai: it’s one of the reasons of why I wrote this article (to add his notable theories that has got debunked, like Nibiru). —LovelyGirl7 talk 04:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think people like Meade need a page, he's notable enough, and he appears in mainstream media enough for people to sit up and ask themselves who he is. At least now people will not have to look too hard to find out he's a crackpot! 8==8 Boneso (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

From jmcgnh

I'll add a few more...

• Before you go for GA review, I suggest that you go through each of the references and expand them with such bibliographical information as is available. Several are missing dates, website, or other details.
• Use of the word "asserted" in the "Early life" section seems odd. Are you trying to convey that the subject claims to have pursued these studies but that it is not otherwise validated? We usually can't use that sort of self-sourced information when the claims can't be verified.
• I don't usually see goodreads.com used as a source. In this case, the use as a reference is particularly bad because the citation does not actually support the claims of the sentence it is attached to. These sort of "identification" citations are a form of spam link and should not be used.

So, definitely not a candidate for GA yet. The notability seems to be there, lots of people have written stuff about this writer and his predictions, but in a case where the person is not truly identified and we are relying on their own tales of their background, we must be extremely careful about what information is credible enough to include in the article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: I was trying to say the subject (Meade) has claims to them. I changed it to “claimed” to make it better. I also removed the goodreads sources from the article as well. I did added bibliography of which books he published. —LovelyGirl7 talk 04:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Boneso's 2 cents

I like the article. Criticism first -

• the early life section seems a little obsolete given the fact that we don't know who he is and can't verify the anything contained in it.
• I would like to know who published his books and see a list of them.
• The end of this sentence does not make sense - Mexico earthquakes – were a sign that Nibiru would appear on September 23 based on Luke 21:25-26 in the chapter verse Luke 21.[34]. I think it needs a full stop after the "12:25-26" and wikilink it to Luke 21:25-26, leave out the external link and delete the rest. Like this - Mexico earthquakes – were a sign that Nibiru would appear on September 23 based on Luke 21:25-26.
• The citations need the publisher included. There are some references to the Washington Post (and quite a few others) that don't indicate that they are from that publication.
• Personally I don't like citations in the lede.

I think you've done a great job. It reads well. To answer your question about Good article - The article contains a lot of unverifiable information the is self reported by Meade himself so I don't see that it fits into the Good article criteria. I didn't edit the article. I'll leave it up to you to decide which suggestions you will take note of (if any), and which ones to ignore. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Boneso: I revised that sentence mentioning the Mexico Earthquakes. His books were published on Amazon. I did added publishers for most of the citations. —LovelyGirl7 talk 05:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

From Rp2006

Very interesting. One thing that strikes me as odd is the lede sentence: "Meade is best known for predicting the world would end on September 23, 2017, and that Nibiru (sometimes known as Planet X) would collide with Earth the same day." Sounds like the two points are presented backwards. Just like "...that Bill would die on September 23, 2017, and he would be shot that same day." seems wrong. Seems it makes more sense to present the points as cause and effect: "...that Bill would be shot on September 23, 2017, and he would die as a result."

@Rp2006: That’s exactly what he’s best known for. Not to mention a lot of people call Nibiru Planet X. —LovelyGirl7 talk 05:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow... I guess I didn't make my point clearly enough for you. What I mean is that the sentence would be much more logical if it was constructed like this: "Meade is best known for predicting that Nibiru (sometimes known as Planet X) would collide with Earth on September 23, 2017, destroying our planet." I just corrected it. RobP (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rp2006: my bad than. Thanks for correcting my grammar. —LovelyGirl7 talk 11:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

From joolzzt

Most things I noticed have have been mentioned already, eg citation dates, but should "he claimed to consider astronomy" be  'he claimed to study astronomy'?  Also I don't think 'pen name' belongs in 'occupation'.  I'm also uneasy about declaring his education in the fact box when there is no proof but I'd need to check if there's a precedent. Good to have him added though, good work. Joolzzt (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Joolzzt: Yes. I’ve already changed “consider” to “study”. Also I’ve removed pen name from occupation. —LovelyGirl7 talk 12:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

From Gronk_Oz

@LovelyGirl7: You have done a great job with a difficult situation. This is similar to a biographical article, but not the same because you only have the pseudonym - so it's tricky to know which Biography guidelines to apply. The Manual of Style section on pseudonyms assumes that the subject's actual name is also available, so some discretion is needed in applying those rules. For example, normally it is deprecated to say that the subject "claims to have studied X" but in this case it's probably unavoidable.

I have a few suggestions to offer that are mostly just minor copy-edits, so please feel free to take them or not. Here they are by section:

Lede

• In the Infobox, his education includes Economics, but I cannot see any mention of that in the body of the article.
• “Meade has written more than twelve books on Amazon.” I doubt that he actually wrote those books on Amazon (whatever that means). Should this read something like “Amazon lists more than twelve books that he has written.”
• “...where stated the 7-year tribulation...” → “...where he stated that the seven-year tribulation...”.

Early life

• Refer to him just by the surname “Meade”.
• “(it is obscure which be that as it may)” I’m not sure what that is intended to mean: could it just be “(it is obscure which)”?
• “…in which limit he composed investigative reports for abnormal state administration and sheets of executives.” I can’t work out what this is trying to say.
• The second half of the second paragraph all concerns current information (where he works, what he does for a living, where he lives), not his early life which is what this section is about.

Predictions

• “He first predicted Nibiru would hit the Earth in October 2017, but moved it back to September 23” – are those the wrong way around? Or should it read “moved it forward”?
• “He also based his predictions through…” → “He also based his predictions on…”

3 Criticism

• It would be more balanced to call this section “Reception”, in order to allow for positive comments as well as negative ones.

4 General

• Needs a list of his published works.
• You did well to find some photos to illustrate it, given the anonymous nature of the subject. It might be good to add a cover for his latest "Planet X" book for currency.

I hope that helps; please get in touch if you have any questions. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I did most of the stuff you suggested me to do, but I have a few questions.

1. For his published works, do you think I should do it in bibliography as to which books he published?

2. Is there anywhere I can find a cover for his “Planet X 2017 Arrival” book? Do I have to download the image for it, because I don’t see it on Flickr? If it’s by image, anywhere else I can upload it from besides Flickr? Where should I place a cover for his Planet X book (infobox or section)?

3. When I nominate it for GA and it passes and gets listed as a GA article, do you think I should be honored as a hero for overcoming adversity? I know this sounds silly but I’ve been going through a lot of adversity and difficult situations with it and I’m so close to overcoming it.

—LovelyGirl7 talk 15:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, LovelyGirl7. For easy reference, I will use your same numbering system:

1. Yes, I would treat it like a biography where there is a separate section called something like "Publications". It should come at the beginning of the end matter, just before "See also". If you want to read up on the options, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works, but just list them in order by publication date and you'll be off to a good start. Include the ISBN if you can (it can be used to fill in a lot of the other details automatically).

2. I checked Amazon, and that has a picture of the book cover. It is low-resolution, which is required to satisfy copyright requirements. It is not "free content" so you will need to follow the procedures for "non-free content" at Wikipedia:Non-free_content. This is long and involved: feel free to call out if I can give you a hand.

3. You're a hero now. You have already done an outstanding job and deserve a big pat on the back. Beware that the GA process can be very long and involved, especially considering the non-standard nature of this subject. So don't wait for the GA tick - it will be sweet when it comes, but take pride in your progress and achievements along the way. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I did added the books he published in bibliography. What are your thoughts on the bibliography part? —LovelyGirl7 talk 16:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I added his most recent book to that list, and I added the image of that book to the Infobox. While I was there, I couldn't help myself making a couple of minor copy-edits to clarify the wording in the lede. If you don't like any of those changes then feel free to revert them. The bibliography would benefit from adding ISBNs to identify the books, and formatting the entries rather than all being plain text. See the entry I added for an example of one way to do that. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I like them. I really do. I do however think David Meade's picture should be at the infobox and the Planet X book can be in "Early Life" (assuming it can work the same way as the Planet X book picture). Is David Meade's photo non-free? --LovelyGirl7 talk 05:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I think the answer is "yes but". In general, the Infobox should have a photo of the subject himself. But in this case we don't know who it is and there is no way to get a photo of him, so I thought the closest we could do was to use the cover of his latest and best-known work. I hope this reasoning is satisfactory for the Admins, because otherwise they may not allow the photo to stay at all. This is because the cover of a book is subject to Copyright, so it's not "free content". It can't be used freely through the body of the article. In any case, it's not related to his early life so it would not fit in that section. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I like that image. Do you think I need to add a few more things or do you think the article is ready as a GA nominee? --LovelyGirl7 talk 15:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I have never been involved with a GA nomination. I can't comment on whether this article is ready, but be prepared for lots of comments if you go down that route. I have glanced over one GA review, and it was a very long and pedantic process - as I would expect to be selected as one of the very best articles in Wikipedia. First you should re-read all of the reviewers' comments here and make sure you incorporate all of those (or have good reasons why not). Read the Good article criteria carefully, more than once, and evaluate this article frankly against them. Then if you do nominate, be up front about the dilemma of writing a "biography" for a pen-name, where nothing can be verified factually. I am not sure how a GA reviewer would respond to that situation (it could be difficult to satisfy Criterion 2). I'm happy to help if I can.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I’ve seen the criteria. I am prepared for every comments. I've read through the reviewers comments and did my best to address the issues. I'm nominating this article and I'm prepared for any scenario with it. I do still have chances to improve the article while being nominated so that should say it. --LovelyGirl7 talk 02:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I have never been involved with a GA nomination, so I don't know how it might go. I guess there's only one way you will ever find out... --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: wish me luck on the process. Thank you for helping me with the article. --LovelyGirl7 talk 03:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

From Poorlyglot

I'll echo previous comments that this article represents a good and important work in progress for a very tricky subject. Thank you for tackling it.

Most of what jumped out at me has already been said above, except one thing: when discussing Meade's books individually or in aggregate, consider mentioning that they are self-published. There's a strong correlation between prolific self-published authors and cranks / crackpots. Not every self-published author is a crackpot, but those who have self-published upwards of a dozen books probably are. Poorlyglot (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Poorlyglot: I’ve added self-published to his books under publisher in Cite web. —LovelyGirl7 talk 16:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

I'm going nominate it for GA status, because seeing these comments from reviewers, I believe I did everything I can to improve the article. You are allowed to give comments on the possible talk page when it gets created by a GA article reviewer. I am prepared for the comments on the talk page when it gets created and I will read all the comments there carefully. I'm also prepared for any scenario as well. I think it does meet the criteria (I've read through them as well). Even while being nominated, I still have chances to improve (especially with what the comments on that page will say). --LovelyGirl7 talk 20:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)