Talk:Rhodes UFO photographs/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ජපස (talk · contribs) 23:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I was interested in looking at this article, but I am sorry to say it does not rise to the level of a "good" article mainly on the basis of being woefully incomplete. The photographs themselves were published in the local paper and received no follow-up -- their precise provenance has not been well-established. The photographer has a somewhat colorful history as documented in the biographical article on him here in Wikipedia. The photographs are not properly contextualized, I believe, because they are obscure, but this rather makes them problematic as the subject of an article. We have no way of knowing basically anything about these photographs other than they were published in a newspaper. But photographs are published in newspapers literally all the time. I suggest rather than GA, this article is probably better redirected to the article on the author.


 * "received no follow-up", "obscure" It's not 'obscure' -- This AZ-Republic   followup is from 2015.
 * Pretty much WP:SENSATIONal reporting as far as I can tell. Doesn't really lend any air of credibility when the same newspaper that published the original images publishes essentially a rehash. What's the wider context? Where is the source that contextualizes this? I can't find it. jps (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "their precise provenance has not been well-established" -- I don't understand this criticism in this context . Their provenance is well-established, though of course I presume they're just hoax with a good provenance, lol.  McMinnville UFO photographs, Patterson-Gimlin film, and Alien autopsy are also about hoaxes or presumable-hoaxes.    I don't much care if we label the article a "Good Article", but if you have any suggestions for making it a BETTER article,  I'd like that.    We have a duty to cover the photos somehwere, and they'd UNDUE at the bio of someone who died in 2007.  Feoffer (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they can be covered fine in the bio. Why the need for a separate article? I think the other three photos you have named are far more noteworthy than this one. In terms of independent sourcing, I can find many. For this set of photographs, I only see Forteana and credulous believers talking about them. jps (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I only see Forteana and credulous believers talking about them Look harder, there's lots. Fox10 News:  article from 2016 "on July 7, 1947, there was a picture taken by William Rhodes of Phoenix. It's one of the first and one of the best UFO pictures ever taken. Rhodes says Government agents visited him once the picture was published in the Arizona paper.  "They wanted to borrow the image, or borrow the negative, and all they said was we want to make a copy of it, and we'll bring it back," said William Rhodes. Rhodes spoke to FOX 10 about it during a 1998 interview, and the agents reportedly never returned the negatives to him."
 * Why the need for a separate article? It'd be UNDUE and unfair to Rhodes to open this can of worms on his bio -- he was a successful inventor, the 1947 photos are a tiny portion of his notability.  When Bloecher debunks Palmer's false claims about the Rhodes photos,  that material would be entirely out of place on Rhodes's bio. Feoffer (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This still lacks a lot of context. The fact that it is one of the "best" UFO pictures "ever taken" is relevant because it's not a very good picture. The primary sources even indicate that. So it's hard to know how to handle a sensationalized UFO story from Fox10 Phoenix as a sourcce. I know that local news channels love UFO stories. But they often don't really provide enough for us to write articles on. Rhodes spoke to the press frequently over the decades complaining that the US government stole his negatives and developed photos. This isn't really explored in this article either, though this obviously is an aspect of the situation. It's better handled over at the biography page.
 * I would argue that Rhodes was not all that notable as an inventor and I think his UFO claims actually are a major aspect of his notability. I don't think Palmer's suggestions of a government conspiracy deserve as much space as you are affording them in this article, either. We know that they are debunked and I don't see them really forming the basis of much of a story outside this. Where are the third-party referencing attesting to Palmer's claims being notable in the context of UFO enthusiasm? jps (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Status query
jps, Feoffer, where does this review stand? Although not mentioned here, I see there are subsequent edits by Feoffer, with new material having been added. It would be great to get this review moving again. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * jps feels strongly that this is an unacceptable topic for a GA, because we can't actually explain how the photographs were made, and adding a Good Article icon to the top of the page might be misinterpreted as the project promoting fringe misinformation.
 * I tend to think a Good Article can be written about any valid topic with enough effort, but I certainly understand concerns about inadvertently promoting fringe. I'm more concerned with making the article good than making it a "Good Article" -- nobody but us knows what File:symbol support vote.svg means.
 * If you (BlueMoonset) feel strongly that it should be a GA, I think you are free to promote it, but I'm very new ot the GA process so don't listen to me. Feoffer (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether this is a Good Article. It strikes me as incomplete in a way that I wouldn't want a Good Article to be, but I don't think there is any way around it. jps (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to request a second opinion from someone more experienced in GA issues such as whether this is incomplete. With any luck someone with a good deal of GA review experience will stop by reasonably soon and let us all know how this relates to the various GA criteria, and in particular number 3 and also the fringe aspect of things. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw the request for a second opinion. I haven't read every source in the article, but I had a look and some things stand out to me. That's not a comprehensive look at the article, but it does indicate to me that a thorough review of all the sourcing is needed. With this sort of material stripped away I doubt there's enough left for a standalone article. To be clear, I've no doubt at all that there's enough discussion of these pictures in unreliable sources to create multiple articles, but just from what I've looked at so far, all I see is enough for a few sentences along the lines of "Rhodes took these pictures, they were published and remain popular among those who believe in UFOs". I would suggest cutting the unreliable material and then see what's left. I think ජපස is probably right that this should be merged into Rhodes' article; it's a short article and this probably is one of his main claims to fame, so I don't think it would be disproportionate to put any surviving material in that article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ray Palmer's magazines Fate and Flying Saucers are not reliable sources, and I think the paragraph quoting Palmer should be cut. It says no more than "people who believed in flying saucers believed Rhodes".
 * The mention of a Shaver Mystery fanzine should also go. If we had a reliable source talking about how these fringe beliefs reinforced each other, that might be something that could be mentioned, but this cites the fanzine directly.
 * Bloecher and Arnold are not reliable sources, and the mention of Brown and Davidson relies on them. Unless Bloecher cites newspaper sources that give details of officer names I think that paragraph should go.
 * The 1958 reprinting in Flying Saucers is not notable in itself, and the Arizona Republic debunking of Palmer's claims is therefore not worth mentioning -- essentially this paragraph says "an unreliable source said something obviously wrong, and it was later reported to be wrong". The 1958 Republic article is used as a citation for Rhodes' invitation to AMC; I don't think that's a sufficiently good source for that.  Almost certainly this information came from Rhodes, not the army, and the piece in the Republic is not a journalist's investigative story, it's just the debunking of Palmer's silly comments.


 * Okay, this is some really good feedback. I'm on it. Feoffer (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

ToDo list

 * Secondary sourcing for Fate significance
 * Secondary sourcing for Flying Saucers significance
 * Secondary sourcing for Shaver significance (reliable source talking about how these fringe beliefs reinforced each other)
 * Better sourcing for Brown and Davis claims (or cut)
 * 1947 press
 * Ruppelt
 * find Modern Folkloric source
 * Better sourcing for AMC claims
 * Expand Condon debunking ✅
 * De-sensationalize lede ✅
 * Chop Dayton trip ✅

Feoffer (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , this is still 's review (I just offered a second opinion) but your to-do list doesn't seem right to me. There are no secondary sources you can find that will make Fate and Flying Saucers into reliable sources.  Overall my opinion is that most of the material I commented on should be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Overall my opinion is that most of the material I commented on should be cut.
 * Based only on the sources in the article, you're right to call for deletion of material!  It's up to me to recall and regurgitate the RSes that justify the text, or delete those portions if they can't be better-justified.
 * I should admit -- it's embarrassing to have you to point out how much of the text didn't have better sourcing, but that's why ya ask your buddy to look over your paper before you turn it in. Human brains become blind to the weaknesses in their own writing.
 * jps and others know I'm all about making our coverage of the topic better, but I'm actually fine if it's not an appropriate topic for a GA.
 * Feoffer (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)