Talk:Ghost rockets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Ghost rockets 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] Citation?

"However, unofficially and secretly, the two had been sent by Lt. General Hoyt Vandenberg, then director of the Central Intelligence Group (CIG), to investigate the ghost rocket situation." This claim seems to be unsupported. Is there a specific citation, that could be added to the article?--Oboroten 07:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

-Probably just something a UFO proponent read and figured it would be good to put on here without having a source. --Opacic (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert by Jamaana 05:40, 11 February 2007

I've been asked to please source my info. OK. I thought I had. I pipe-linked to the two Wikipedia articles which provided the facts to which I referred. My topic sentence was supported elsewhere on the page itself; inter alia, in the caption of the photo immediately adjacent my contribution. What did you want to see that I didn't include, Jamaana?

- 12+ hours later: In the absence of elaboration from Jamaana, I'm going to reinstate my contribution. Jamaana, would you suggest any improvements here on the talk page, instead of reverting my contribution, please?

[edit] GA review (Fail)

  1. Well written. The writing is generally interesting and good. However, it could be a bit more concise and less editorial. See WP:MOS and WP:IA.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable. Not well-cited. Needs proper inline citations. See WP:CITE and WP:ATT.
  3. Broad in its coverage. No mention of the notability of the occurances in wider society. No real coverage of critics of such reports.
  4. Neutral point of view policy. The article is very biased towards a particular perspective on the phenomena. See WP:NPOV.
  5. Stable. No stability issues.
  6. Use of images. Decent use of images.

This article needs some significant improvement to reach GA standards. Vassyana 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)