Talk:Twin Falls saucer hoax

Twin Falls saucer hoax has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 29, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Twin Falls saucer hoax appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 December 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Twin Falls "saucer" was later proven to be a hoax created by four teenagers?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Twin Falls saucer hoax.

Wikipedia

Skepticism Low‑importance

	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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Idaho Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Idaho portal This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho.

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Etrius ( Us) 17:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lets get this reviewed.

Copy-vios[edit]

Earwig has nothing
Random checks finds nothing exciting.

Sources[edit]

"'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[edit]

Nothing of note

Prose[edit]

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)[reply]

@Etriusus: Thanks again for all the excellent suggestions. See what you think now. Feoffer (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

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.
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.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Yes
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Yes
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.
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[edit]

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)[reply]

(

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).[reply]

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)[reply]