Wikipedia:Peer review/Roswell UFO incident/archive1
Roswell UFO incident[edit]
WP:PARA's first collaboration of the month. Has undergone massive editing, but needs direction on further improvement/current standing before sending it in for a GA nomination. --InShaneee 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, does this bring back paranoid memories, I'm glad its finally being improved on wikipedia. Lets see, there are some WP:MOS problems like full dates should be wiki-linked. Speaking of wikilinking, some section seem completely absent of them which made me feel like I was reading a book. The lead is a little short, another paragraph or two could be added. I counted three external links that need to be converted to footnotes. Lastly, the article needs some light copyediting and rephrasing in parts. I wouldn't be suprised to see this at FAC this month, great job! - Tutmosis 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific about what parts need rephrasing/copy-editing? ---J.S (t|c) 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll probably do some copyediting myself later on today and also get back to you about some parts. - Tutmosis 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific about what parts need rephrasing/copy-editing? ---J.S (t|c) 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, does this bring back paranoid memories, I'm glad its finally being improved on wikipedia. Lets see, there are some WP:MOS problems like full dates should be wiki-linked. Speaking of wikilinking, some section seem completely absent of them which made me feel like I was reading a book. The lead is a little short, another paragraph or two could be added. I counted three external links that need to be converted to footnotes. Lastly, the article needs some light copyediting and rephrasing in parts. I wouldn't be suprised to see this at FAC this month, great job! - Tutmosis 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
General Concerns
- The Naming of the sections is quite bad. The names are long and quite redundant. I gave some renaming ideas below in the review. First and the last two section names are fine.
- When you say someone alleges/claims something in a sentence, you probably need a footnote for that.
- I feel "Roswell as an alien recovery and government cover-up" is quite long and can be cut down, and especially "Roswell as a myth: The skeptical response".
- Pardon me if I'm wrong, going from memory wasn't there some conspiracy that some bus of children on a field-trip discovered the crashed saucer with some alien bodies around and then the military came and picked everything up.
- Only a brief mention of the materials found as being exotic. Like the wierd lettering on some bar, which the air force says was gift wrapping and wierd non-destructible material. Going off memory again.
- In general this article could use some reorganization. If I was writing the article I probably would separate information by "Background", "Materials found" comparison from both sides;theorists and military, "Theories", "Recent developments" and "In popular culture".
- Section names have been changed per your suggestions. --InShaneee 21:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Modern background
- Could be renamed just 'Background', what the point of 'Modern'?
- "The result was summarized in two reports." Going from personal memory, this reports were published as books, Do you think you can mention the names so the reader can follow-up on them if he wishes?
Contemporary accounts of a "flying disc" at Roswell
- Maybe rename 'Contemporary accounts of evidence found'
- "according to initial accounts of the time" Who composed and took this accounts? Very important because multiple versions are circulated.
- The whole date thing in the second paragraph is very confusing, I wish this 2/3 sentence be reworked into something simple.
- The next day, Brazel heard reports about "flying discs" I don't think 'reports' is right, 'news reports' maybe? were they about flying discs in the area or some other part of the country?
- You tell me what the Roswell Daily Record newspaper said, but how did they hear about the story?
- The Roswell Daily Record quote is very long, maybe put it in a template from Category:Quotation templates?
- "A telex uncovered in the 1990s" How was it uncovered?
- I think in general this section gives poor information on how the media picked up on the story, that "News reports: "flying disc" becomes "weather balloon" section says how the media story changed to "weather balloon", but the stories about how the media thought it was a flying disc are completely absent and the impact it had on the community/nation.
- 'The Roswell Army Air Field' press release quote is very long, maybe put it in a template from Category:Quotation templates?
- "The incident was quickly forgotten." Very awkward section ending, and needs a footnote.
- Quotation templates added. --InShaneee 21:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
"Claimed alien and spacecraft recoveries, cover-ups, witness intimidation"
- Again can be renamed, maybe "Conspiracy theories" or something simple.
- "General Arthur E. Exon claimed" to whom? newspapers? ufologists?
- who is "General Arthur E. Exon"?
- "Then, they assert," awkward sentence starter.
- This whole section just all of a sudden goes on telling the alternative story, by whom is this account given? Reading it you quickly forget that this is another account, because it only mentions this in the second paragraph and then just goes off like fact.
Roswell as a myth: The skeptical response
- Maybe rename "Other Theories"...
- I think this section should be cut-down so I wont review yet (maybe create a sub-article for all this?).
- Clarified who Gen. Exon is. --InShaneee 02:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The last two section look fine. Anyway, thanks for reading my personal suggestions which I want to be taken as advice not necessarily what I think must be done. - Tutmosis 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)