Talk:2024 United States drone sightings/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 22:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Lead

• Lead is 220 words, of a total of 4354. The lead is slightly too small at about 5%. Average recommended lead lengths for an article this size tend to run anywhere from 7-10%, but closer to 10% at higher levels of article quality. Most of the GA and FAs I’m looking at aim for 8-10%. I would recommend expanding it from around 128 to 215 words, if possible, based on the total current size.
• One sentence (or half of one) can be added to represent the background. I don’t really see any of the background represented in the lead.

Background

• The number of commercial and recreational drones operating in the United States was estimated by the FAA to reach approximately 2.8 million in 2024. The agency reported receiving over 100 drone sighting reports monthly in 2024. In response to increasing unauthorized drone activity near airports, the FAA initiated the “Pathfinder” program in 2016 to develop detection technology.
  • Reverse chronology and date redundancy, two of my pet peeves! It seems weird to read about the 2016 program after beginning with the 2024 estimates. Not unheard of, but confusing. Instead of saying 2024 twice in a row, figure out a way to say it only once.
    • I updated the background section to use chronological order. The “2024” redundancy there is because one of those was a 2023 forecast of drone activity in 2024, and the other was a count after 2024 had concluded. I’ve improved the phrasing because that was unclear. Diff. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 14:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Reports of unidentified drone sightings in the U.S. predated 2024, including a notable series over Colorado and Nebraska in late 2019 and early 2020.
  • It begins with 2024, goes back to 2016, then back to 2024, then back to 2019 and 2020. You can certainly do it it this way, but it has to be expertly done. Better to just start with 2016 and work your way forward.
    • It just occurred to me: removing the intro might solve the duplication later on that I mention in the spot check. That would leave you to start with 2016 instead. Problem solved?
    • I’ve sorted the section chronologically. Diff. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 14:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• In a February 2025 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, General Gregory Guillot…
  • If you delete the War of the Worlds paragraph, then this might be your last paragraph.
• Reporting on the 2024 sightings, a journalist noted that New Jersey has a long-standing association with tales of the strange and surreal…residents of New Jersey panicked after mistaking the fictional CBS Radio drama “The War of the Worlds” for an actual alien invasion of Grovers Mill.
  • In recent years this has been disputed in whole or in part. See the commentary in The War of the Worlds (1938 radio drama). It might have to be reworded. From what I understand, the idea of the mass panic was sensationalized, and only came down to a few people. Blame is often put on Hadley Cantril for spreading these rumors with his 1940 book on the subject. Nate Hendley summarized the debunking in The Big Con (2016), and he cites his sources (see also the debunking of Cantril on Wikipedia). Based on what we know now, I would recommend excising the entire sentence.

Reported sightings

• You want to avoid a semblance of proseline and figure out how to best group the content by subtopic within each reported sighting category. Right now, it reads like x saw y on z date, and that’s pretty damn boring and doesn’t really explain the topic beyond someone saw something on this day. You’ve got it grouped by location and type (reported sightings), and specific categories of sightings (military and civilians). That’s a great start. The military and politicians reported that lights and drones were seen. Strangely, the White House countered these explanations. You then confusingly go back and forth with the chronology which doesn’t clear this up.
• You’ve got this basically unused image of the Raritan River and its watershed in the top of this section. Think about the opportunity you are missing out on here. The entire first paragraph is perfect for a location map overlay. Have you ever done this before? It’s super easy and it would help your article tremendously. There are many different ways to do this. You can see {{overlay}} for one way, but look at the see also section on that page for other methods. {{Location map+}} might be what you’re looking for, but there’s so many different ways to do it.

• Military reported sightings: dates are all over the place here. You go from November 13 to December 13, from December 17 back to December 10, from December 13 to December 17, then back to December 9 and then to December 18, and then December 9 to December 15. I don’t understand why the section is ordered this way, or how it is structured narratively. If you’re not using a linear timeline, then you need an obvious structure based on topical grouping.
• Civilian reported sightings: Drone activity was observed by law enforcement on November 19 according to the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office in New Jersey. You can just say “Drone activity was observed by law enforcement on November 19”.

• It may very well be the case that splitting up these sightings by military and civilians might not work, and it does interfere with the timeline when you do it this way.

• You’re right, I was trying to somehow have it both arranged topically and chronologically, but that isn’t really possible. I’ve updated it to group things topically – let me know if that resolves these concerns. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Claimants described the drones in various ways, sometimes as large as SUVs, occasionally emitting a loud hum, and sometimes seen alongside fixed-wing aircraft
  • To me at least, “claimants” comes off as overly legalistic in this context. It makes more sense to call them eyewitnesses or witnesses. Neither term implies anything other than they think they saw something.
• By December 24, 2024, the Ocean County sheriff’s office noted that reports in northern New Jersey had “decreased dramatically.” On January 5, 2025, the news website DroneXL reported that media and social media attention had faded and the “hysteria has subsided.”

• • Think about how to eliminate proseline (read the essay) and when to quote and when to paraphrase. Neither of these sentences needs the exact dates nor quotes. There are many ways to do this, but I will provide just one example for you: “By Christmas Eve, reports in northern New Jersey had slowed to a trickle. The social media attention given to the phenomenon had all but ended by the beginning of 2025.” The point is that you want to draw the reader in with compelling narrative that tells a cohesive story by connecting the reader with the subject and making them feel they are right there with you. There are some editors on Wikipedia who are extremely resistant to this, but the vast majority accept that this is necessary. Tell the story. Make it interesting and informative at the same time.

Investigations and findings

• An interagency investigation, led by the FBI and including various federal and state agencies, began on December 3, 2024. As of January 21, 2025, the investigation was reportedly still ongoing. Federal investigators did not identify any suspects or recover any drones, and by mid-December 2024, they had determined that most sightings had mundane explanations.
  • “An interagency investigation, led by the FBI and various federal and state agencies, began in early December 2024. Federal investigators did not identify any suspects or recover any drones, and by the middle of the month, they had determined that most sightings had mundane explanations. The investigation was reportedly still ongoing as of 2025.”
    • The exact days are not important to the reader here and we don’t need to go from December 2024 to January 2025, then back to December again.
• You’ve got seven paragraphs in this section in non-chronological proseline going back and forth within the month of December like drunken sailors who accidentally stepped into a TARDIS. I don’t know how you want to do it, but because all seven paragraphs are taking place in December, write it in chronological order.

Responses

• This section appears to work better than other sections due to focus on chronology and topic.

Possible explanations

• 9 Explanations for the Drone Sightings Over New Jersey, Ranked From Most to Least Likely
  • This is a great list but you can shorten it considerably by paraphrasing it.
• Journalists, psychologists, and neurologists have described the drone sightings as “mass panic” or “mass delusion,” some considering them a type of UFO flap.
  • Let’s get more precise with the wording. Obviously, if people are seeing drones, that’s not mass panic or delusion, so your wording needs to be cleaned up. What you are trying to say is that the drone sightings have led to or contributed to a kind of mass panic. But I’m curious, which came first? The false stories and explanations about the drones or the mass panic? My take on this, having seen it play out so many times before, is that the mass panic was cultivated by the emerging infodemic in the media, online, and in political discourse. What do the sources say?

See also

References

• Please run IABot and archive the page. You are missing quite a number of archival links and we are currently having major problems with linkrot.

Randomized spot check

• 6c: Check, but you are duplicating content from 6a (background and possible explanations sections). That’s somewhat unusual (but not unheard of). We tend to only duplicate content in the lead, although there are a handful of exceptions. I think there’s a way you can maintain this content but rewrite it in either the first or second instance so that it’s clear it applies to either background or possible explanations.
• 14: Check, but why do you have two additional sources here? Do you need them? 6b doesn’t seem to even apply.

  I guess I’m not 100% confident on the reliability of The War Zone. It seems legitimate, but it’s nice to have a couple mainstream news sources there as well to confirm. I don’t see the 6b source here btw. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 29a: Not clear how or why this source is being used or why it is needed. Also, it shows a photo of helicopter and says because they couldn’t hear the sound it must be something other than a heli. That makes me wonder if this is even a legit source or if it is needed.

  This source verifies the Raritan River geography of early sightings:

  …asking the public to report any information related to the recent sightings of possible drones flying in several areas along the Raritan River.

  Asbury Park Press seems like a reliable source, though that particular helicopter claim does seem suspect.

  Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 29b: See above.

  Responded above. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 36: Check.
• 41: Check.
• 54: Check.
• 61: Semi-check. The reporting sounds slightly fishy. The “National Guard armory” thing probably shouldn’t be included in the prose based on the original source cited. Go back and have another look.

  Can you clarify what aspect you take issue with? The FOX 4 source or the reporting itself? The police chief said that the sighted aircraft contravened a military no-fly zone, which is why it’s included in this section. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 75: Check.
• 86a: Check, but the source is out of date, and the content is highly suspect in this specific source. Very sketchy.

  I can remove this statement all together if you’d like – it’s frustrating because I haven’t been able to find a source for an end date of the federal investigation. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 86b: Not sure how this source supports the material.

  It supports the did not identify any suspects or recover any drones statement. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 93a: Check.
• 93b: Not clear how it is being used here.

  This is simply the video and transcript of the John Kirby briefing that the NYT source refers to. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 103: Check, but you already have several sources that cite the same material and quote without needing to cite the tweet, so it feels superfluous.

  I can remove it if you feel strongly, but I find it convenient to have the primary source cited even if we have other secondary sources that quote it. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 113: Semi-check. You write, “In response to these events, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced on December 15 that the federal government would provide New York with a drone detection system.” The headline also implies this. But the body of the article says it was only a request and feasibility question, so there’s no evidence the drone detection systems were received and installed. Can you look for a follow-up?

  The BBC source follows up and confirms that a detection system was sent. I’ll move that source first since it has more information. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 126: Check.
• 130: Check.
• 146: Semi-check. This is a paraphrase of the quote by ABC News. Can you confirm Adams used these or similar words in the video? We’ve had past problems of people citing news sources for things the people never said, so it’s always good to check or to modify your sentence.

• 152: Check. This is super interesting. This is not the first time we’ve seen this kind of social media infodemic and I wonder if we can say more about this kind of thing as I find it the most important aspect of the subject, in other words, what appears to be an organized movement to push a false narrative. Where I live in Hawaii, we watched it happen in real time, minute by minute, during the Maui fires.
• 166: Check. I would say that mass hysteria is not the cause, but the result of a false narrative being pushed about the drones.

External links

• I’m not convinced you need the link to the commons cat as 1) you are already using the map image in the lead infobox position, and 2) the only other file is a disputed video of dubious authenticity.

Images

Former U.S. Air Force general James Poss was skeptical of the foreign adversary explanation because the aircraft used FAA-compliant lighting.

But it’s a stretch, for sure. I’ve removed it: diff. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 14:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues

• Remnants and artifacts of prose and newsline from breaking stories, many of which may be out of date or suspect due to the fog of war-quality of reporting.

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   WP:PROSELINE is the biggest challenge.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Paragraph readability is excellent. This is an article written for readers, which is somewhat rare.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Discussion

Hey Viriditas, thanks for taking on this review! I’m starting to address your feedback. I’m going to put any updates beneath the individual pieces of feedback above, but let me know if there’s a better way to do this. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 14:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to do it any way you like. You have total freedom on this page. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]