Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hollow Moon/1

Hollow Moon

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Hollow_Moon/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Looks good. Thanks to . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really in GA shape. Contains uncited text, as well as some rather questionable sources like Daily Express, Inquisitr, as well as sources that aren't really suitable for what they're supporting, for instances Finally, a third hypothesis suggested that the Moon may have been a planetoid captured by Earth's gravity. sourced to a website that probably isn't RS and a 1960s news report. Needs general cleanup. Hog Farm Talk 00:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Removed Daily Express and Iniquistr, added a 21st century RS for the pre-Apollo (now disproven) "captured planetoid" hypothesis. Feoffer (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for resolving that. I'm also a bit concerned of the degree of primary sourcing at some points - mostly the entire popular culture section, but other spots as well. For instance, how can we know that it's really WP:DUEWEIGHT to cite the existence (and implied importance) of Steckling's Alien Bases on the Moon, to Steckling's work itself? Or even something like In 1920, fringe author Marshall B. Gardner cited Wells's speculation of a Hollow Moon as support of the Hollow Earth theory cited only to Gardner's book? Especially for a topic like this that attracts significant fringe attention, it's really best to be using a secondary source that indicates these usages or mentions are significant, rather than just using the existence of the work for inclusion. Hog Farm Talk 01:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent point!  I looked into the Gardner book and agree it can be omitted -- it was just there to talk about the influence of the Welles novel and we have plenty of content that already accomplishes that purpose.
 * I re-screened the Pop Culture section adding sources where possible and removing an entries where notability was negligible. See what you think! Feoffer (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * - from a quick look, there's still some uncited text that would need addressed. The IMDB cites (which don't seem important) should also be removed as that source is user-generated. Hog Farm Talk 00:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * have you seen the above? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping! I chopped the IMDB cites, which indeed weren't important at all. But I forgot to mention it here.  Thanks, Hogfarm, for the improvement!    Feoffer (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There still seems to be quite a bit of uncited information . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You happen to catch me right in the middle of a major revision of an important article on 20th-century fringe (L. Ron Hubbard), so I'm not as prompt as I might like. I took another pass as the text.   I think info is now explicitly cited, but feel free to give a shout out if you still can't find the sources for anything. Feoffer (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)