Talk:Roswell incident/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lingzhi.Renascence (talk · contribs) 00:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Let's start with sources/References:

   Harassed Rancher who Located 'Saucer' Sorry He Told About it". Roswell Daily Record. July 9, 1947. cited in McAndrews 1997, pp. 8 Harv error: link from CITEREFMcAndrews1997 doesn't point to any citation.

   As for these below, either find what body text they are supposed to be a citation for, or delete them, or move them down to Further reading:

   Carey, Thomas; Schmitt, Donald (2007). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation.

   Friedman, Stanton; Berliner, Don (1992). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation.

   Friedman, Stanton (2005). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation.

   Randle, Kevin (1995).Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation.

   Randle, Kevin; Schmitt, Donald (1994). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation

   Weaver, Richard; McAndrew, James (1995). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation

2. "In popular fiction" is a humongous WP:LIST § Lingzhi (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Feoffer. I'll take a look at this. Optimistic timeline: 1 week; more realistic, 2 weeks. But I'll get 'er done. § Lingzhi (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Bon Courage

Took a look at the "Greys and False Memory Syndrome" section and noted the following issues:

1. Inconsistent citation method. Throughout, the article at one point had a standalone source list and plain text references; now it seems to have mixed that with inline citations
2. Uncited content: this section starts with a big quotation, but from where?
3. Questionable relevance. A lot of this section seems off-topic, being about an alien abduction with no obvious relevance to Roswell
4. Imprecise references; references for claims (for example the Toby Smith book) are made to entire books making WP:V all but impossible, all such references must have page numbers. Bon courage (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment from LuckyLouie

The "folklore diagram" is concerning: [1]. Is it a reproduction of a diagram published in the cited source ("UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth. Smithsonian Institution Press")?...in that case it would be WP:COPYVIO. Or is it an original work based on the editor's analysis of the text?...in that case it would be WP:OR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment from JoJo Anthrax

As noted by others the article has several issues, including those involving WP:LEAD, citations, and the coverage of off-topic material. The article also features a writing style that, while pleasant, is more appropriate for a magazine than an encyclopedia. All of those issues, however, can be resolved, and I will try to help with that process. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Failed GA

Unfortunately, this article seems to need a lot of attention. Fix 'er up and submit it again! § Lingzhi (talk)

Alight! Thanks for the feedback!  :) Feoffer (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2023 (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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)