Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Peer review/2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of all WikiProject Paranormal peer reviews for 2006. Please do not modify discussions here.
Contents |
[edit] Peer Reviews
[edit] Boy Scout Lane
This entry has just been revamped and could do with a review to find the gaps perfectblue 18:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] InShaneee
Picture needs to be thumb'd and given a caption, first off. A source for the private ownership (do the Boy Scouts still own it?) would be cool, although that may be difficult to track down. I am curious what its current development status is, though. Along with that, a little more emperical information about the site itself (how big is the wooded area? What was the road constructed for? ect) is definatly needed. Converting the citations to full inline would also be a big step forward. --InShaneee 18:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fouke Monster
This article has been significantly expaned upon and needs both peer revieing and re-rating (no longer a stub) perfectblue 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zagalejo
A few suggestions:
- 1)I'm a bit confused about the "First reported" section of the infobox. What precisely is the difference between the pre-1970s "local legends" and the reports from the 1970s?
- 2)What do "North" and "East" refer to in the intro section?
- 3)There are a lot of single-sentence paragraphs. You should try to cluster some of them together.
- 4)There are also a few minor typos, sentence fragments, etc. (I could probably take care of these myself, though).
- 5)Some of the citations seem to be jumbled. For example, ref #22 is supposed to link to the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism, but it points to amazon.com instead.
Overall, though, it's a nice article, and it looks like you put a lot of hard work into it. Keep up the good work! Zagalejo 01:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for the input, I'll act on the imediate bits right away.
1) First published report/lots of unpublished rumors (Great grandpappy saw it back in 56, or was it 65.....) 2) The creature was seen in Boggy Creek, in 71-74, and in locations hundreds of K to the North and East in 78/ 3) I'm on it 4) I'm rubbish at proof reading, maybe somebody else can help? 5) Will look into it
perfectblue 07:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've quickly looked through it a couple of times and tried to fix any errors I could find. If I have some more time later, I can look through the article more carefully. Zagalejo 14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] InShaneee
I went ahead and re-rated this as a very nice B class. Firstly, I'd move the Chronology section up before the Appearance section. Secondly, I'd definatly put the 'pre-1971' section at the top of Chronology, and perhaps title the rest 'post-1971'. In the Hoax section, that quote needs to be worked into the paragraph, rather than standing out as a bullet point. In the 'in film' section, I'd recommend cutting the sequal sections down to just a sentence or two mention each, since not all of that is relevant to the creature, and because they do have their own pages. That book mentioned in the 'see also' section needs to be either moved to 'references' or removed, whichever is appropriate. Finally, the external links section needs to be brought up to code (ie, this format: [http://www.link.com Title of link] ). Otherwise, as is plain to see, a truly breathtaking expansion! --InShaneee 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Extraterrestrial hypothesis
I have re-written this article to be more consice and to be based on time periods and the evolution of the idea rather than on the concepts of individual scientists and writters, but I've reached a stalling point and need outside input. Particularly on how to proceed when it comes to the Pro ETH sections (Most reputable sources say only that it hasn't been proven impossible, yet). The section must be there to blance the article, but there isn't much WP:RS to work with without delving into UFO Lore (kooksville) which I would like to avoid.
perfectblue 08:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] InShaneee
First off, I think that that second poll in the Chronology section needs to be converted to prose (the first one should probably be ok as it is). The closing sentences of the "against" and "for" sections need rectifying; it makes NASA sound like they can't make up their mind. Can any non-fair use images (of a UFO or one of the pundits or something) be found to toss into the article? My stance on the Pro section is this: This is a hypothosis. Really, all that's needed to satisfy a Pro section is prominent people who believe in it, and why (if available). Honestly, I think once those little things are met, nominate it as a Good Article; the only thing they could really reject upon is the fact that there are so many polls as polls, and even then I'm not sure that some of them aren't needed as they are. Best of luck! --InShaneee 13:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Greys
Due to the huge amount of mess and the OR/uncited content, I've re-written this page and merged the real and popular culture aspeccts into a single timeline charting Greys from their early appearance in books in the 19th century, through to the Hill abductions and their use in the X-files.
Ideas and comment welcome perfectblue 15:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] InShaneee
That last sentence needs to be re-worded from a 'verifiability' standpoint; perhaps change "they" to something along the lines of "accounts fitting this description"? The more sources in the 'Appearance' section, the better (epecially after sentences like the "some accounts" one). In '1890-1950', the sentence structure is a little stilted (a side effect of merging, I imagine), and also the book references need to be standarized (all italicized). In '1950s', "greys branched out" sounds odd again; I'm not quite sure what "flying saucers features" refers to, either. The first sentence of '1960s' is a little sensational. '1970s' has that same awkward "them"; I think what I'm getting at is it might be best if there was some standardization towords them not being referrred to as actual entities (which can't be proven), but rather as an archetypal description (and I'll stop bothering you with each and every instance of that now :P ). That last perspective in the Perspectives section needs to be fully filled out. The 'Alternatives' section seems a bit stilted, and it makes me nervous that it has no citations. Honestly, I don't like that Coast to Coast AM link in the 'external links' section; we don't want a link to their website on every paranormal page. As for further expansion, '1950s' obviously needs some new material, and after further research, if it doesn't look like there's much more to put in some of those timeline sections, you might want to consider merging them (it's perfectly acceptable to not have the time segments equal if that's how the content falls). Here's a biggie as well: Where did the term 'grey' come from? Also, I think if the article gets much bigger, an image of Thor from SG-1 might be a good 'modern' image. --InShaneee 15:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zagalejo
InShaneee makes some good points. As far as the "Alternatives" section goes, haven't researchers also proposed that the grey is some sort of subconscious visualization of a human fetus? I don't have a link handy, but it might be worth looking into. The psychological explanations for the phenomenon seem interesting to me. Zagalejo 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
