Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Meade (author)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2018 [1].

David Meade (author)[edit]

Nominator(s): LovelyGirl7 talk 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a end times theorist who has a history of making failed predictions. He first gained attention after the solar eclipse of Augsut 21st, 2017, when he predicted the world would end on September 23rd, 2017 due to a hidden planet named Nibiru destroying the Earth. His predictions gained media attention from several sources, such as Heavy.com, Fox News, Newsweek, the UK tabloids, the Time Magazine, The Washington Post, and other articles as well. His claims have even been debunked through The Washington Post and by Christians and scientists. The article is currently a GA article nominee and I'm nominating it for FA article status. I think I've done several things to help the article, even after it's GA nomination passed. I'm ready for comments, and I even have time to address every concern before this passes hopefully. With that said, I'm proud to nominate it for FA status. LovelyGirl7 talk 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article itself is fine (writing, etc.), but the notability of the subject is marginal, mostly because of a single article published in September of 2017 by the Washington Post that was picked up by other outlets (note the dates of nearly all of the sources). OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I was looking over this article for a review. However, on a close look, this fails several aspects of WP:FACR.

  • 1(a): There are several places where the prose could have been polished. For instance:
    • Meade is best known for predicting that planet Nibiru (sometimes known as Planet X) would collide with Earth on 23 September 2017, destroying our planet - First, "our planet" is pretty vague (even though it's obviously referring to Earth, you could just say "it". Second, "best known for" is a little redundant, I'd say "known for".
    • In 2018, Meade again made several predictions for that year, such as North Korea becoming a superpower in March 2018 and that Nibiru would destroy the Earth in spring - this is an inconsistent grammatical structure since "becoming" and "would destroy" are not the same tense. It would be better to say, e.g. "In 2018, Meade again made several predictions for that year, for instance, that North Korea would become a superpower in March 2018, and that Nibiru would destroy the Earth in spring".
    • After March 2018 passed, he would then move the apocalypse to April 23, 2018, - this is an inconsistent tense from the last sentence, which is in the past tense. This sentence is the future perfect tense.
    • The third paragraph of the lead is a single sentence.
    • On his Google Plus page, he also identifies himself as an investigative journalist - On the Internet, you can say anything: on my Google Plus page, I can identify myself as a high-ranking executive of some big company, when in reality I'm just a college student. "Identifies himself" should be "claims to be". Same with much of the rest of this entire paragraph, he just purports to be these things.
    • In the rest of the article, I see many informal contractions, like "doesn't" in voting that the United States doesn't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
    • In terms of tone, some of the predictions themselves are being presented as if they were actual possibilities. For example, Meade received extensive media attention following his predictions that a rogue planet, Nibiru, would destroy Earth on 23 September 2017 talks about Nibiru as if it were real. The article Nibiru cataclysm explicitly mentions that this is "a supposed disastrous encounter between the Earth and a large planetary object [...] which certain groups believe will take place in the early 21st century" - i.e. a conspiracy theory (BTW, "conspiracy theory" is also described in the Nibiru page). In general, these aren't really predictions, but rather, conspiracy theories that even this article acknowledges.
    • Another example of stating fiction-as-fact would be On 21 September,[21] an Orange County, California television station accidentally warned viewers of his prediction, in which broadcasting officials stated that the false alert was caused by a glitch from a test by the Emergency Alert System. I'd say "On 21 September,[21] an Orange County, California, television station accidentally displayed his prediction in an emergency alert, and broadcasting officials stated that the false alert was caused by a glitch from a test by the Emergency Alert System." To be fair, the sources do say that it's a fake prediction.
    • A lot of inconsistent date formats: e.g. "April 23, 2018" vs "23 September 2017".
  • 1(c): A lot of self-published sources by Meade are used. While this is fine for describing the subject as part of a Good Article, I would like to see more secondary sources for featured article status. Also, other self-published sources that are not by Meade are used, as well as tabloids.
  • 1(e): From the article, it seems like the predictions are ongoing, and therefore it would not be stable. Also, he came to prominence relatively recently, so I'd wait a little longer to see if, for instance, he makes any more predictions or reveals his identity. As it currently sounds, Meade is a pseudonymous author who only got covered by the media last year.

Unfortunately, at this time, I would oppose this nomination. I really appreciate the work you placed into this article, LovelyGirl7, and all of your efforts to polish this article into as good a shape as possible. However, I think you should wait a little longer and see if Meade's notability lasts enough to be published by additional more-credible sources. I hope you take this as a suggestion for an improvement, not as a criticism. epicgenius (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: How about now? I'm still busy working on the article. Could you please tell me which parts of the article contains tabloids/sources that needs to be replaced? I'm willing to replace them with better sources. --LovelyGirl7 talk 22:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LovelyGirl7: Unfortunately, the article would still fail criterion 1(e). I know there are Featured Articles about people whose details are constantly changing (e.g. Hillary Clinton, John McCain), but the notability of these subjects is well-established. However, as Ohnoitsjamie said above, Meade's notability might not be well-established yet. Also, Meade's article is subject to frequent changes: for example, if something happens on April 23 that should elicit a response from him or from the media, that would obviously be a major change to a major aspect of this article.
However, I'll make suggestions for reference improvements, anyway. Science20.com and Meade's personal website are both self-published by the subject, as are his work on Google Books and Amazon, although these sources can be used if you are referencing what he is claiming and they are published by other sources as well. Bustle, Politician Reviews, Christianity Today, mysteriousuniverse.org (to name a few) seem to live outside the mainstream, publishing self-published commentary by other commentators. Additionally, sources like Sinclair Broadcasting Group and Fox probably should not be used when talking about such controversial topics, as they have a dubious history of being subjective on conspiracy theorists like Meade. epicgenius (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: When you do look up the sources, could you please let me know or change them in the article? Also, it's unlikely anything happens April 23rd. Meade has a history of failing and this shouldn't be any different. --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LovelyGirl7: I know. That's why there will probably be another controversy that "Ooh, this guy was wrong again". Anyway, I will let you know if any replacements can be found for specific references. epicgenius (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank youo! Could you please let me know the replacements on my talk page whenever. --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will let you know if I do find them. epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from SarahSV[edit]

  • Sorry, this is another oppose, mainly per 1a and 1c. This is really about the fringe theory Nibiru cataclysm; Meade is covered in that article in the section 2017 revival. This BLP offers too detailed an account of the various claims, and it isn't clear that there's enough biographical information to justify a separate article. In addition, it would have to be written very differently to be an FA; for example, his claims would have to be placed in context by explaining where the ideas come from. Finally, there seem to be quite a few non-RS. SarahSV (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Based on the considered opposition above, I'm going to archive this nom and ask that improvements based on the commentary be implemented outside the FAC process. I'd also recommend that before re-nominating (which per FAC instructions can take place after two weeks) the nominator request the above reviewers to offer an informal peer review if they have the time to see if their concerns have generally been dealt with. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/David_Meade_(author)/archive1&oldid=836810154"