ALT1: ... that the circular shape of typical flying saucers may be due to reporters misunderstanding the first eyewitness's "saucer-like" description of motion? Source: Garber, Megan (15 June 2014). "The Man Who Introduced the World to Flying Saucers". The Atlantic. Retrieved 14 July 2024. ARNOLD: [...] 'They said that I said that they were saucer-like; I said that they flew in a saucer-like fashion.' [...] Some argue that the entire idea of a flying saucer was based on a reporter's misunderstanding of Arnold's "like a saucer" description as describing a saucer itself—making it "one of the most significant reporter misquotes in history." A 1970 study reviewing U.S. newspaper accounts of the Arnold UFO sighting concluded that the term had been introduced by an editor or headline writer, since the bodies of the early Arnold news stories didn't mention "flying saucers" or "flying discs."
ALT2: ... that the U.S. government and General Mills launched thousands of spy balloons in the 1950s that were widely reported as flying saucers? Source: Baker, Nicholson (31 January 2024). "No Aliens Haven't Visited the Eart". Intelligencer. Retrieved 9 October 2024. As these "Skyhook" balloons got bigger, they floated everywhere, sometimes thousands of miles away, sometimes across oceans, and wherever they went, people saw flying saucers. So successful were the new balloons that by the mid-1950s, General Mills, flooded with military- and CIA-funded contracts, built a balloon factory in St. Paul twice as big as the old one. Nearly 400 people worked there, making 6,000 gigantic balloons and half a million smaller ones per year.
Comment: The image is only included for the first hook about science fiction. The first eyewitness, Kenneth Arnold, did draw sketches but they don't make a great thumbnail. The article could probably support some pretty odd hooks, but I think these three meet NPOV for the main page without needing to lean on the added context from the article itself.
Improved to Good Article status by Rjjiii (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.
Support in general. First wording is the fact I like best. I'm not familier with DYK, but if appropriate, we could go a little further: "DYK ... that science fiction featured flying saucers(example pictured) for decades before the first eye-witness reported seeing one?" Feoffer (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, Feoffer. It's common to offer variations on hooks and alternative hook ideas for a DYK. I appreciate the suggestion and have no issues with that one. It summarizes a couple of different cited lines ("Many aspects of the typical flying saucer" and "The modern flying saucer concept..."). If folks feel that it needs to be more explicit, similar wording could be added to the lead and cited to: Eghigian, Greg (2024). After the Flying Saucers Came: A Global History of the UFO Phenomenon. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 249. ISBN9780190092054. The following year, Bertrand Méheust, a trained sociologist and scholar of parapsychology, published Science- fiction et soucoupes volantes: uneréalité mythico- physique (Science Fiction and Flying Saucers: A Mythico-Physical Reality).86 In it, he challenged the argument that descriptions of flying saucers and aliens were unique to the postwar world. On the contrary, he showed virtually every element in the flying saucer phenomenon appeared in science fiction literature dating back to the nineteenth century. The nom will need an additional reviewer for the suggested hook (per WP:DYKRR). Rjjiii (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
A full DYK review is needed, not just for the new hook; the original review did not review per the DYK criteria, necessary things such as article newness, length, sourcing, copyvios, close paraphrasing, etc. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
This is a very interesting topic to bring to GA and DYK, Rjjiii. Viriditas did a very thorough review. The article passed its GA nomination shortly before it was nominated here. Earwig is giving a false positive copyvio/close paraphrasing result; I do not see any issues. The article seems neutral to me, though the spotters might disagree. The hooks are all fine, but I think this article can produce a great one. Something whacky, offbeat, fun? Perhaps some X-files vibe? :) Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! Regarding weird hooks here, an issue is the guideline WP:FRINGE, which requires context for fringe ideas. The article has the space to present a fringe idea in context, but a hook doesn't. Many of the people involved in the early flying saucer community are unusual, and the sources would support a hook about some of them, like for example, '...that the original flying saucer witness investigated alleged saucer debris killing a man's dog, which led to the deaths of two Air Force officers transporting a corn flakes box full of the debris?' I'll think on this for a bit, Rjjiii (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Surtsicna, here are two variations on a potential hook:
ALTX1: that a National Guard pilot died pursuing a reported flying saucer in 1948, which was later identified as a spy balloon manufactured by General Mills?
I'm hoping that catches some of the weirdness of the subject, Rjjiii (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, this one is good, Rjjiii! Should we not link Mantell UFO incident? Come to think of it, that article is not far from GA quality either. Do you think it could be improved to GA and nominated alongside this one? ALTX2 might then say "that a National Guard pilot died pursuing a reported flying saucer in 1948?" I think it would be splendid. Surtsicna (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
A link to Mantell UFO incident sounds good. It could provide context, so I've added the link into the hook above in the same way that your example is formatted. The Mantell article is in good shape, but I will pass on a GA nomination and double DYK. GA reviews can take a quite a while especially for odd or broad subjects. Rjjiii (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)