Talk:Twin Falls saucer hoax/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 06:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Lets get this reviewed.

Copy-vios

• Earwig has nothing
• Random checks finds nothing exciting.

Sources

• "'Flying Saucers' Seen by 16 More Residents of Area, 8 Jul 1947, 1 - The Times-News at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Citation is formatted wrong  Done
• A bunch of these sources are formatted incorrectly. The date, publisher, and title are amalgamated together in the Source title.  Done
• FN 13 should be under a separate footnotes section, not in references.  Done
• Sources have been manually reviewed, none are dead and I have no concerns regarding source's reliability.

Images

• Nothing of note

Prose

• An infobox could be used here. This is optional but a suggestion.  Done
• In the intro, can you specify the exact date? Done
• , a sighting was reported... specify these were all different sightings  Done
• In general this background section should be rearranged. I don't see the purpose of 3 discrete sections when 'background' would implicitly cover all of this.  Done
• A 'description' section for the disk itself would be really nice to have. Due to the relative shortness of the article, giving a more indepth breakdown of the object would be a good idea. I see FN 16 & 17 give a fairly decent description of the object. Done
• 'apparently-mundane' Not finding in the source, please cut. Done
• What is the purpose of the invisible comments? Done
• The Twin Falls hoax was not the last recovered saucer hoax. On July 28, 1947, just weeks after the Twin Falls hoax, there were reports of recovered disc debris at Maury Island, Washington. In 1949, another 'crashed disc' story circulated as part of the Aztec, New Mexico UFO hoax. source got lost  Done

In general, a review of the sources tells me they're relatively underutilized. I would recommend taking a second pass just to make sure nothing was missed. I made a few clarifications, please review them and feel free to revert. Placing on hold.

Great feedback, thank you! I'm on it. Feoffer (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus: Thanks again for all the excellent suggestions. See what you think now. Feoffer (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Feoffer I performed some minor clean-up/clarifications. Nothing that couldn't be fixed on my own. I added a quote template to the description section to help break it up into a more readable format. Thank you for being so responsive. Article passes, congrats!!!! Etrius ( Us) 17:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yes

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.