Wikipedia:Peer review/Ängelholm UFO memorial/archive1

Ängelholm UFO memorial

I'm listing this for peer review prior to nominating it for GA. Any feedback is welcome. Feel free to ask questions.

Thanks, Rjjiii (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Consider using "alleged UFO" instead of "alleged unidentified flying object (UFO)", for the sake of conciseness. The abbreviated version is commonly understood so a wikilink should be sufficient.
• There should be a "the" before the phrase "purportedly life-size landing impressions," otherwise the sentence reads awkward and could make it appear like its an extension of the first item (model of a flying saucer), instead of it being the second one.
• In the phrase "Sweden's top player at the time," it could be better to state that he was "one of Sweden's top players" or "considered to be Sweden's top player" since the term is somewhat subjective unless it were unanimous to the extent that no one is considered to be his peer. Upto your discretion.
• In the phrase "country's top league (Hockeyettan)", the parenthesis is not necessary and the "top" should be replaced with "highest" as a matter of precision. The term "highest" is usually the more common term used for a country's topmost league, while "top" could also seem vague (for example, a second division can also be considered a "top league") and the term "top" is repetitive at this point, since it is already used in the previous sentence.
• In the sentence "After Carlsson witnessed the craft leave, he returned to the clearing to gather artifacts he believed the crew had discarded, including a quartz rod," it could be made more clear by stating "he returned to the clearing to gather what he believed were artifacts discarded by the crew, including a quartz rod."
• In the phrase "that would form the basis of the 1972 memorial" it might be better practise to specify that it was the memorial for the UFO encounter that was to be constructed since it's the first time in the body that a memorial is being mentioned.
• In the sentence "Carlsson both maintained that the events occurred and recognized that they may sound like dreams to other people," it could be more clear to state "Carlsson both maintained that the events occurred and acknowledged that they might sound like dreams to others."
• Ref 18, sourced to Poland based The First News has incorrect citation details. The news article has a named author and there is no indication that the news article itself is from a Polish Press Agency feed, only a couple images are sourced from them (and some others from YouTube). Please remove "Polish Press Agency" from the citation.
• The article has a gallery section with about four images in it. Note that this is discouraged per WP:GALLERY; I'd suggest incorporating them in the article if possible, otherwise dropping them.
  • The fourth image, the plaque in the gallery is perhaps a better representation of the site than the aerial photograph present in the background section is, since the latter may be difficult to make out, so I'd suggest replacing that with it.
  • The first image or the plaque in the gallery could also been a decent addition to the monument section. The first image is a more close-up shot of the monument although it is quite similar to the infobox so upto your discretion.

Hello Rjjiii, I've listed my comments above with the GA criteria in mind. Hope you find my feedback useful. Regards and good luck for the GAN. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks much, this is quite helpful. The First News is owned by Polish Press Agency. At the bottom of the page it says "The First News is owned by [pap] POLISH PRESS AGENCY". It's an image file so perhaps it didn't load when you checked it out? All of the feedback on the writing is excellent. And you're likely right about the gallery. I'll begin putting your feedback into use soon, Rjjiii (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, you are right about the ref; I think I just did not notice that with it being at the very bottom and only saw the about page where it wasn't mentioned. There's also one additional point (related to the first comment) that I forgot to type out; it might be better to describe it as a "alleged UFO landing site" instead of just "alleged UFO landing". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)