Talk:1976 Tehran UFO incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1976 Tehran UFO incident article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Paranormal Portal 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	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

1976 Tehran UFO incident was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: March 22, 2007

[edit] GA review (Fail)

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)