Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roswell incident/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 November 2024 [1].

Roswell incident

[edit]
Nominator(s): Feoffer (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a conspiracy theory which alleges that the 1947 crash of a United States Army Air Forces balloon near Roswell, New Mexico was actually caused by an extraterrestrial spacecraft. With extensive polished sourcing, the article details the actual events of 1947, the later rise of UFO conspiracy theories, the emergence of the Roswell conspiracy theories, their evolution and eventual debunking. Feoffer (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Marcel-roswell-debris_0.jpg: where is that tagging coming from? It's not consistent with what's at the source site. Ditto File:Ramey-dubose-debris.jpg
    • The images were published without copyright notice in July 1947 and never renewed, entering public domain. While previously-unpublished images in the UTA collection would fall under the blanket Creative Commons release, UTA can't actually assert copyright on a faithful 2d replica of a public domain image. Feoffer (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it known that these particular images were published in 1947? I'm not seeing that at the source site either. If that can be shown, I'd suggest ditching the CC licensing on the basis of the images being PD. If it can't, though, the CC license UTA uses is BY-NC, not BY-SA which is what the images are currently tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        UTA's stated license is probably not relevant. I don't see any reason they'd have the rights to the photo, so the license would be for the scanning and uploading. If the photos are in the public domain then the UTA license is not needed, but if the photos are not then the UTA license is not valid. J. Bond Johnson took both photos for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on 8 July 1947. The Telegram and other papers ran the photos on the 9th and 10th. The Telegram didn't have a copyright notice. Rjjiii (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Aztec-hoax-pic.png: the uploader is not the copyright holder here
  • File:Screenshot_of_Alien_Prop_from_Roswell,_The_UFO_Cover_Up_(1994).jpeg needs a stronger FUR. Ditto File:Alien_Autopsy_Fact_or_Fiction_1995_screenshot_cropped.png, File:Jose_Chung_alien_autopsy_screenshot.png
  • File:Rosewell_Reports,_Volume_1.ogv: source link appears to go to an unrelated video, please check

Support from HAL

[edit]

Staking out a spot. Comments to come soon. ~ HAL333 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for feedback -- great username and sig. Feoffer (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a huge fan of the wording of "1947 crash of a United States Army Air Forces balloon near Roswell, New Mexico was actually caused by an extraterrestrial spacecraft". It implies that a UFO caused a balloon to crash.
  • "metallic and rubber debris was" --> "were"
  • "Trust in the US government declined and acceptance of conspiracy theories became widespread" - can you explain why this is the case? Maybe mention the Assassination of John F. Kennedy and Watergate — I think a mention of the latter is especially appropriate since you then use "Cosmic Watergate".
  • "On September 20, 1980, the TV series In Search of..." — Can you mention that this episode was hosted by Leonard Nimoy?
  • Stanton Friedman is linked more than once
  • "decomposing from exposure and predators" — I think "scavengers" is more apt than "predators".
  • I would wikilink Oliver Stone
  • "Thomas DuBose... acknowledged the weather balloon cover story" — This sentence is confusing. He acknowledges that the balloon story, or that it was a cover? Or that it was a cover for Mogul? Or a saucer? Please clarify.
  • "a New Mexico congressman" - Could you name him/her?
  • "Santilli would admit years later" --> "Santilli admitted years later" per WP:WOULDCHUCK, and can you give the actual year of the admission?
  • This issue pops up elsewhere:
    • "The Air Force would later describe the" --> "The Air Force later described the
    • "New Mexico emerged that would later form elements"
    • "alien bodies that would later become associated with Roswell"
    • "Independent researchers would find patterns"
    • "Doty would later say"
  • Terminator 2 should be italicized, not put in quotations
  • I would wikilink Kodachrome
  • I would remove the months from "In September 2017," and from "In February 2020,". They're not necessary to the reader's understanding, are not given for most older dates and strike me as recentist.
  • "weather balloon" is linked in the Project Mogul subsection, but not in its first mention much earlier...
  • "Thomas DuBose" also has duplicate links but is still not linked in his first mention
  • "Ufologists had previously considered" — "previously" is redundant since you use the past perfect

Very nice work. Kudos to you for tackling a subject like this. ~ HAL333 14:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great points all! I think we've got 'em all. Feoffer (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. ~ HAL333 05:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, just need to flag that I've coincidentally identified a copyvio concern related to a major contributor to this article. I have not assessed to what extent their contributions persist in the present version, but careful spotchecks will be warranted here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria Thanks for looking into it! Glancing through diffs and running "Who Wrote That" (assuming I have the right editor) I see copyedits, references, formatting, and deletions. More scrutiny never hurts though, Rjjiii (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also looked through the edits of the user with the copyvio (assuming I have the right one), but it's mostly deletions and ref polishing. Feoffer (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

[edit]
  • On June 4, researchers at Alamogordo Army Air Field launched a long train of these balloons...the balloon subsequently crashed Why not "a balloon/one of the ballons subsequently crashe"?
  • Where is Alamogordo Army Air Field located? (For instance, near X in state Y)
  • Where is Brazel's ranch located?
  • Publicity of Arnold's report incited a wave of over 800 sightings... I would avoid the verb "incite".
  • I would also avoid the verb "trigger". Could a more neutral language be used? I think nobody could prove that Arnold's report triggered each sighting?
  • Changed to Publicity of Arnold's report preceded a wave of over 800 similar sightings..., Rjjiii (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is Roswell Army Air Field located?
  • Where is Fort Worth Army Air Field located?
  • Why is not Associated Press italicised?
  • Where is Wright-Patterson Air Force Base located?

So far no major issues, more to come... Borsoka (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link (and possibly decrypt) USAF when it is first mentioned.
  • I would write "the alleged Majestic 12 group" instead of MJ-12 because the abbreviation is not introduced anywhere in the text.
  • ..., many of whom still accepted earlier hoaxes like the Aztec crash,... I would delete it to avoid possible original synthesis.
  • The reports of bodies came decades later. Delete, because the core of the statement is repeated in a following sentence ("The claims of alien bodies – made decades later by elderly witnesses,...")
  • He identifies six distinct narratives... Could these be listed in a footnote?
  • The 1994 film Roswell was based on the book UFO Crash at Roswell by Kevin D. Randle and Donald R. Schmitt. Delete (the info is covered twice in previous sections, and this section should not be an exhaustive list).
  • Could section "Popular fiction" be expanded from international perpective?
  • I think section "Statements by US Presidents" is the only weak point of this otherwise excellent article. As it is not introduced, it reads like a random collection of quotes about Roswell from randomly chosen US presidents. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am wandering whether the article could be expanded to become more international. As far as I know, Roswell is an important topic of conspiracy theorists all over the world. Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great suggestions all! We've addressed them with the following exceptions:
    • Alamagordo, Roswell, and Ft. Worth are place names, so we can't add "near X" without being redundant (e.g. "Roswell Army Air Field, near Roswell".
    • Per desire for international fiction, search yielded no results. Also looked at French, German, Russian, and Japanese wikipedias, -- only one non-English fictional work mentioned, with only a minimal link to Roswell.
    • per desire for international influence of the story, searched was conducted, but it's unclear if RSes exist on its international influence. @Rjjiii might have more ideas on these last two points.
    Thanks again for the feedback. Feoffer (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two minor issues pending but they cannot prevent me from supporting the article's promotion, even if I know this article is only a new attempt by the US government to conceal its cooperation with blood-sucking grey aliens. The Truth Is Out There. Thank you for this thoroughly researched, well-written and interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for five weeks and discussion seems to have dried up with two general supports. It's on the urgents list, but unless there's significant activity towards a consensus to promote in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Will comment shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it SchroCat; I think I've resolved these concerns in the article, Rjjiii (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • You describe the balloon as crashed at the end of the first paragraph, but I think you need to make this clear at the start.
  • "they lost contact within 17 miles (27 km) of W.W. "Mac" Brazel's ranch near Corona, New Mexico". This is unclear. They lost contact with all the balloons? With the one that crashed? This needs clarifying.
  • "Amid the first summer of the Cold War,[7] press nationwide covered Kenneth Arnold's June 24 account". How did Arnold get involved? You imply below that at this stage the debris had not been reported.
    • He was involved only indirectly in creating the idea of a flying saucer. Would trimming things down like this be more clear: "Amid the first summer of the Cold War, press nationwide covered Kenneth Arnold's June 24 account of what became known as flying saucers, objects which allegedly performed maneuvers beyond the capabilities of any known aircraft. Publicity of Arnold's report preceded a wave of over 800 similar sightings. With no phone or radio, Brazel was initially unaware of the ongoing flying disc craze," → "Amid this first summer of the Cold War, nationwide press coverage of the earliest flying saucer report preceded a wave of over 800 similar sightings. With no phone or radio, Brazel was initially unaware of the ongoing flying disc craze," or is it something that needs to be explained in this article? Rjjiii (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]
Formatting
[edit]

That may be it on the formatting, but I'll take another spin after you've sorted these. I'll also do the literature checks on the next part too. - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat, I've done most of these. There are two where I had questions about what the expectation is, Rjjiii (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questions answered and I've added a point about the prepositions. - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've done all of these now, Rjjiii (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source reliability and coverage
[edit]
  • UFOs and conspiracy coverage are normally a bit of a nightmare in terms of sourcing, but it looks like you've done well in keeping to reliable sources. I'll get back on this part soon. - SchroCat (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a specialist in the area, so don't have a full grasp of every aspect of the literature, so I've tried to take a conservative and cautious approach to requirements.
  • Going through the sources, I see that all—as far as I can tell—are reliable; all are being used appropriately.
  • Additional research into any unused sources is complicated by the subject matter, but those sources that have not been used are of the unreliable type that shouldn't be here anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you looking through this stuff and also the kind words. Yes, it's a "nightmare" to look for sources. Like, there are a couple of books by Dr. Michael D. Swords that at-a-glance look good, but he was a professor of natural sciences who retired and started writing WP:PULP history that speculates about a vast alien coverup. There is self-published skeptical research by Robert G. Todd and Timothy Printy that has to be cited only to the extent that the published WP:RS use it. For some conspiracy theory books that were not covered like The Roswell Report by Eberhart and Top Secret/MAJIC by Friedman, the multi-colored chart in the talk page archives shows that most reliable sources didn't place any weight on those works. Thanks again, Rjjiii (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the changes: I'm happy to pass the source review - SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks: pass
[edit]

OK, I've gone through and picked a paragraph or two from most sections and pulled it to pieces to check every line of the para is a. sourced correctly and reflective of what the source is saying; and b. not a copyvio or close paraphrasing of the original. Overall it's in pretty good shape, but there are a couple of points where there are queries or problems:

1947 military balloon crash
  • "By 1947": No reference to Project Mogul; source describes balloons were to "detect" tests, not "listen for", which is different
    • It describes Mogul without naming it, so I've added a second source which use both the name "Mogul" and the verb "listen" rather than acoustic detection, "the Air Force, early in 1947, funded a related program at NYU, the Constant Altitude Balloon Project, code-named Mogul, which aimed to listen for a nuclear explosion in the USSR so that American strategizers would know right away when the Soviets had the atomic bomb. A young engineer, Charles B. Moore, launched a number of Mogul flights using a train of neoprene balloons to lift a low-frequency microphone high into the upper atmosphere. After some preliminary experiments on the East Coast, he and his team soon relocated to Holloman Air Force Base at Alamogordo, New Mexico."[9]
  • "On June 4": OK
  • "Later that month": OK
  • "On July 8": OK
  • "Robert Porter": OK
  • "After station director": OK
UFO conspiracy theories (1947–1978)
  • "The 1947 debris": OK
  • "Reporting ceased": I'm not seeing that on p 193
    • 193 has, "The Roswell newspaper accounts are the only shards of physical evidence that exist to document these happenings. The Roswell incident was dead and almost forgotten, with only a handful of brief references to these events appearing in the thirty years after 1947." I've expanded the citation to include the beginning of the top paragraph on 192 which has "The story died the next day. Air Force Gen. Roger Ramey announced that the flying saucer wreckage had been misidentified and was merely a 'harmless, high-altitude weather balloon.'" Rjjiii (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "broader reporting": OK
  • "Just days after": OK
  • "In 1974, science-fiction author": no reference to "Hangar 18". Source says it was the "Aurora UFO crash", not the "Aztec" crash – are these the same?
    • Done, I think: "In October 1974, Robert S. Carr [...] claimed that for the past twenty-five years, the Air Force had twelve alien bodies in deep freeze at Wright-Patterson AFB. [...] It was simply an embellished version of the Aztec, New Mexico crash story Scully had told. [...] (242)." Endnote 1 on that page says, "Both Carr and the novel said the bodies were kept on ice at 'Hangar 18' at Wright-Patterson AFB. (321)"[10] I've added the endnote's page number to the citation. Rjjiii (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carr claimed that": OK
  • "another idea later incorporated": OK (although FN 63 has a page-range typo: Disch 2000, pp. 53–34)
  • "The Air Force explained": OK
  • "The 1980 film": OK
  • "as 'nascent Roswell mythology": OK
  • "Decades later": OK
Air Force response
  • "Under pressure from": I'd move this to the end of the sentence, as it's meaningless where it is and FN 167 (Kloor) doesn't appear to back this up at all, unless I'm missing something
    • Done. Kloor puts the time at "several decades" prior to 2017 and well after "1980" but I guess that's vague. I've removed the Kloor citation, since Goldberg covers the whole sentence. Rjjiii (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The initial 1994": OK
  • "Published the following year": OK (although is the ref "ch. 6, para. 16"? Why not just p. 152?)
  • "Within the UFO community": Ditto, although why para 17, when it's on page 153
  • "The UFO community": only "the reports did admit the 1947 account to have been false" appears on p. 214 of Goldberg – although it wasn't the UFO community that noted it, which is what our text says. On p 215 it does say the UFO community dismissed the reports, but there is nothing that supports "containing no information about alleged Majestic 12 group or extraterrestrial corpses"
  • "Contemporary polls": OK
The Day After Roswell
  • "In 1997, retired": OK, but use page 151, rather than "ch. 6, paras. 13–15"
  • "Corso's book combined": OK
  • "Corso alleged that": OK
  • "The Day After Roswell contains": OK
  • "For example, Corso": OK
  • "says the 1947 debris": OK
  • "All other Roswell books": OK for content, but the paraphrasing is a little close for my liking:
    • Our text: "All other Roswell books correctly located the 8th Army Air Force headquarters at Fort Worth Army Air Field"
    • Source: "Every other book ever published on the Roswell Incident has correctly located the 8th Air Force headquarters at the Fort Worth Army Air Field"
Anthropomorphic dummies
  • "The 1947 Roswell accounts": OK
  • "Jesse Marcel dismissed the reports when asked": Nope. The source says Marcel died before publication of the books "which claim that the Air Force recovered ET bodies as well as a crashed saucer—something that was never mentioned by Marcel ... We can only speculate as to what Marcel’s reaction would have been to such claims".
    • Rather try to clarify this, I've removed it. It's somewhat covered by the previous sentence and the article elsewhere says, "Marcel never mentioned the presence of bodies." A couple of ufologists have said they asked Marcel about alien bodies prior to his death in 1986 and that he was dismissive, but in hindsight it seems inappropriate to place weight on their word regarding Marcel's word when WP:RS aren't giving it much consideration. Rjjiii (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roswell authors interviewed": OK
  • "The claims of alien bodies": OK
Hi SchroCat, just checking to see if the outstanding issues have been resolved to your satisfaction yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not heard that they've been done yet, so I don't know whether they've been finished or are still a work in progress... - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: I think I've resolved all but one of these now. There is one about a typo where I'm not sure what the issue is, Rjjiii (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "Obscuring the true purpose and source of the crashed balloon, the army subsequently stated that it was a conventional weather balloon." This doesn't read well to me. Might 'To obscure the true purpose ...' be a little clearer?

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2024 (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/Roswell_incident/archive1&oldid=1258677793"