Talk:Twin Falls saucer hoax

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Twin Falls saucer hoax/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Twin Falls "saucer" was later proven to be a hoax created by four teenagers? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94298643/twin-falls-falling-disc-proves/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Castle Clinton

Improved to Good Article status by Feoffer (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 15:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC).

• Article was promoted to GA status within the last seven days, is over the required prose size and has no copybook concerns. Hook is interesting and supported by the newspaper cutting provided. QPQ is present, good to go. Kosack (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Reception

"Decades later, fringe conspiracy theorists like Kenn Thomas and Nick Redfern would cite the Twin Falls hoax in connection with both UFO conspiracy theories and JFK assassination conspiracy theories."

I checked the three inline sources and, while they do mention the JFK assassination and UFOs, none of them seem to mention the Twin Falls incident specifically. Did I miss something? Bonus Person (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)