Talk:1976 Tehran UFO incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 1976 Tehran UFO incident was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
March 22, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

GA review (Fail)[edit]

  1. Well-written. The writing needs work. It needs to be more engaging and more concisely written. See WP:MOS, WP:LEDE and WP:IA.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable. This article has very few sources and almost no inline citations. This article needs significant work sourcing its claims. See WP:CITE and WP:ATT.
  3. Broad in its coverage. The breadth of coverage is decent, though more detail could be added.
  4. Neutral point of view. This article does reasonably well at balancing the claims, but does seem to spend a lot of time with an apologetic approach. A more neutral tone reporting the facts and specifically attributing claims is needed.
  5. Stable. No problems with stability.
  6. Use of images. Needs more images to compliment the article.

This article needs significant work to reach GA standards. Vassyana 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Emergency squash[edit]

Would someone knowledgable amplify what the term "emergency squash" means, used in the Jafari quote...

We could hear emergency squash all the way, which was reported by other airliners flying at the time and continued for another couple of days.

Is it a radio comms term, like squelch? JBel (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Article needs heavy editing/improvements[edit]

This entire article reads like something you would find on one of those horrible UFO Hunter shows. Clearly written by true believers without a shred of objectivity. I'm going to try to research some and edit the page, but I could use some help.JoelWhy (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm finally getting back to this page and see that the page continues to violate NPOV. It relies extensively of UFO books, which only meet Wiki requirements for purposes of showing what UFO believers think. They simply cannot be used as a neutral source for demonstrating what events transpired. I'm trying to track down the Klass book, which, from what I understand, is misrepresented in this article. Will try to edit more once I can obtain a copy.JoelWhy (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what UFO sources you're using. Timothy Good isn't very reliable, as he believes "contactee" claims, and Fawcett is also suspect. Jerome Clark, however, is much more reliable, and he uses primary sources, such as newspaper accounts. Philip Klass is just as biased in the other direction, as he's a hard-core UFO debunker (and not a credentialed scientist, for that matter). I do think his views need to be more prominently included in the article, however, as this article does have little or no balance, and certainly some skeptical viewpoints would greatly improve the article. However, while skepticial views need to be more prominently mentioned, I don't think replacing a supposedly "pro-UFO" viewpoint with a completely debunking one is an improvement, and would still violate Wiki's neutrality clause - just as the article currently does. It seems a better and more informative approach for a general reader of this article would be to include both pro and con views from the most reliable sources, and thus would remove any NPOV. Just a thought. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliability?[edit]

Guys please try to understand what reliability is? In case of UFO the debunkers are probably as unreliable, if not more, as the believers. You should use the account of Jafari to report what the incident was. Anybody else other than Jafari (and the other Iran's defense officers involved and perhaps the document which showed US involvement at heighest level and which was confirmed by Jafari) is secondary source. In fact all UFO debunkers in this case are tertiary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.195.181 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)