This review is transcluded from Talk:2024 United States drone sightings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

• 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.
  •  Done Expanded to 306 words. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 20:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.
  •  Done Added a summary of the background section. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.
    •  Done. Diff. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 14:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.
    • Fair point! Removed. Diff. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 14:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

• Good idea! I will look into this. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! Let me know if you're happy with the map I added or if it needs further refinement. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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".

• Partly done - I changed it to: Drone activity was reportedly observed by law enforcement on November 18, 2024, in New Jersey. Fixed the date as well. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

•  Done Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

• I've attempted to improve the section along these lines. I don't want to remove all the dates since sometimes they add valuable context, but I've removed the ones that are redundant or don't add much. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

• You've got a way with words haha. I've fixed the federal investigation section to be chronological, and the state investigations section to be organized by state. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This section appears to work better than other sections due to its focus on linear chronology and topic, which makes it more balanced.

• 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.
    •  Done. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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?
    • You're right, it wouldn't make sense to call bona fide drone sightings a mass panic. But a wave of drone reports can accurately be described as a form of mass panic, per the sources. My understanding is that reports of drones caused a panic, where people looked up and misidentified more things as drones, causing a vicious cycle. I've clarified the phrasing thusly:

Journalists, psychologists, and neurologists have described the wave of drone reports as "mass panic" or "mass delusion," some considering it a type of UFO flap.

Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why many of these entries are here or why they are unsorted. I say to keep the 2019–20 Colorado drone sightings, 2023 Chinese balloon incident, 2024 drone sightings, and List of unmanned aerial vehicle-related incidents. The others are not relevant.

• Partly done. I've removed links that are already present in the article body per MOS:ALSO, and links to specific UFO incidents. I have retained the UFO sightings in the United States link since there is an argument that this event was a form of UFO flap. See diff. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• They are sorted alphabetically. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

   Done Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randomized spot check

• Note: See this revision for the reference numbers. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 6a: Check.
• 6b: It's not clear how the source applies here.

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

• 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 possibl∂e explanations.

  I think this small amount of duplication is to the benefit of the reader. The facts are relevant to both sections, and we risk the reader missing them if they jump directly to one of these sections without reading through the entire article. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

  I ended up removing it. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 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.

• Good catch! Unfortunately if he did say that, it isn't included in the video. I removed that part of the sentence since this section is about misidentified aerial objects, not mass hysteria. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like LuckyLouie was able to track down a source. Much appreciated! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.
  • I wasn't able to find information alleging this was an intentional disinformation campaign. I also don't really think that's the case - it seemed like a pretty organic mass panic by the public. Happy to be proven wrong if you find sources along those lines. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way modern disinformation campaigns work is by amplification, not by starting the fire. The kindling is the organic mass panic. The disinformation seeks to amplify this natural confusion and spread the fire. This is what happened with the COVID-19 infodemic, and it is widely studied. It's also what happened with the Maui fires. In terms of the drone sightings, your article indicates a feedback loop between the sightings, the media coverage, and the pundits. If you don't have sources that cover this, that's fine, but I suspect they are out there. I think the idea that these kinds of things are organic and don't have bad actors pushing and amplifying the false discourse is an older way of thinking that has fallen out of favor since Cambridge Analytica.

    We now know that most of these disinformation narratives have amplification nodes. This is especially true with climate denial going back to the 1990s, which was amplified by right wing think tank networks. Academia ignored the role of these players until the early to mid-2000s, finally admitting that they were doing this all along while not paying any attention to the evidence for decades. The reason academia ignored this evidence for so long is because the right wing think tanks were actively funding university departments. Anyway, that's neither here nor there, but I did want to give you a brief historical overview.

The idea that these things are entirely "organic" hasn't really been true for years. More relevant, Steve Bannon and others have acknowledged that their main tactic is to "flood the zone with shit" to occupy, engage, and overwhelm the media as a method of distraction. When the media is busy devoting their energy to covering UFOs, UAPs, and drone sightings, they are less focused on acting as watchdogs of democracy, highlighting and investigating corruption, and watching what is going on in government in terms of accountability and the rule of law.

More tangentially, experts like Kim Lane Scheppele have connected Bannon's strategy to the overall authoritarian playbook in Europe, where in Hungary the tactic was used to distract the opposition while passing draconian laws. While there's no evidence Bannon or the right had anything to do with this, we do see a pattern over the last several decades (or more) of mostly right-wing politicians (but not entirely) and pundits pushing the UFO, UAP, and drone angles. The subtext here is obvious. They are saying "government doesn't work, government can't protect us, and government is lying to us about x, y, and z." This directly undermines faith in government, in experts, and all the associated democratic values that go along with that.

I believe it was Carl Sagan and several other skeptics who first noticed that UFO reporting tended to lead to a general distrust of science. I first personally became aware of this in the 1990s when I learned that a significant number of UFO enthusiasts identified with fringe religious movements. We saw the same people and players emerge during the COVID-19 infodemic with the same tactics and playbook, the same right-wing "libertarian" think tanks and religious groups pushing the same denial they used previously with climate and the environment, but now focused on public health and safety with anti-government talking points focused solely on...distrust of science.

Coincidentally, this very distrust of government and science and the inherent religious undertones ("Satan buried those dinosaur fossils there to distract you; UFOs are demons") is also closely aligned with the entire platform for the billionaire-funded push to destroy liberal constitutional democracy. Naomi Oreskes, Jane Mayer, Katherine Stewart, Anne Nelson, and Nancy MacLean (among dozens of other authors) have covered this exact topic and put the disparate pieces together. I'll leave it at that. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done extensive research on this and couldn't find reliable sources documenting a coordinated disinformation campaign, though I agree it's certainly possible one existed. Experts tend to characterize this as a psycho-social phenomenon resulting in widespread misidentifications. While politicians amplified conspiracy theories, I couldn't find sources documenting coordination or organized networks. None of the scholars you mentioned (Oreskes, Mayer, Stewart, Nelson, MacLean, Scheppele) appear to have commented on this event, and I didn't find sources connecting it to Bannon's strategies. If you find any sources documenting organized campaigns specific to the drone sightings, I'd genuinely like to see them and would be happy to incorporate that perspective. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 166: Check. I would say that mass hysteria is not the cause, but the result of a false narrative being pushed about the drones.

  See above. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

• Agreed, removed. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Raritanrivermap.png
  • This isn't a very helpful image unless you highlight the flight corridor with an annotation. There are wikitools to do this with markup directly on to the image with a template.

• Replaced with a labelled map. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:HMS Monmouth's Lynx Helicopter Conducts Ground Run Testing at Night MOD 45153365.jpg
  • No idea why this image is in the article.
    • The idea was to show what an aircraft with FAA-compliant lighting looks like, illustrating this sentence:

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]

• 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.

• I believe this is resolved. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. It permeates every section of the article except for one.

   Fixed.

   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:

   Spot-check complete.

   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):

   Looks good.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No OR.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig returns mostly false positives due to quoting.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Broad coverage.

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

   Focused, but the lead could use slightly more detail.

   My take is that some of the material is unnecessary, but we need to figure this out on the talk page.

   Upon closer reflection, and after reading this article many times, the problem isn't unnecessary material, it's the lack of a larger coherent narrative that makes some of the info appear unnecessary.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   Neutrality is good. Well done.

5. Is it stable?

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

   Relatively stable. No edit wars.

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:

   Images issues addressed on review page.

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

   Captions are good.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Primary issue under discussion on review page centers around the use of proseline. The text comes off as scattered, fragmented, and non-chronological, with no real coherent narrative tying it all together. Some efforts have been made to fix this problem. Putting on hold for now.

   Note, I have only just become aware of the edits made by User:Basaatw.[2] Some of them appear to be LLM hallucinations, one of which I removed.[3] Because this problem has nothing to do with the nominator, who has worked hard in good faith to improve this topic, I feel it best to keep the review open and extend the time needed to check Basaatw's edits instead of outright failing. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe everything is golden now. I only have three minor complaints: 1) Lack of a larger, coherent narrative. It's there, but the primary contributor needs to tease it out and make it dominant. 2) The lead section could provide a more general, and at the same time, a more detailed overview. I notice that it largely avoids the political conflicts and disputes briefly mentioned in the body. 3) As you likely know, several unreliable sources are now reporting as of yesterday that the whole thing was just a test of new technology by an unnamed military contractor. While obviously not definitive, Reddit is dismissing this as nonsense. You may want to watch this development in the coming weeks and months. In any case, great work on the reference review and good luck with continuing to improve this subject. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thank you for this very rigorous review, Viriditas! I believe all of your feedback has been addressed, so please take another look when you have some time. Cheers, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I will give it a final read through shortly. I will try to finish it up today or tonight. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update

1. Hi Viriditas, I'm happy to let you know I've finished reviewing all the references in the article. I didn't find any other fabricated links thankfully, but I did find some verification issues which I corrected. You can find a summary of my reference check at Talk:2024 United States drone sightings/2025 reference verification. I also made a few, hopefully uncontroversial, improvements to the article. Thank you for your patience and for giving me time to resolve the issue. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 04:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Taking a look now. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   @Anne drew: The article reads wonderfully now, but the quoting is just slightly excessive; whether it is overly excessive I'm still trying to determine. If you have any time to convert the quotes you don't really need into simple paraphrases, that would likely solve the problem. You can take a look at my recent edits to see how I did it. Other than the typos I fixed and the replacement of spokesman, the only other issue I see is strange capitalization, but that has to do with other article titles outside of this one and I've taken it up with the editor directly responsible for that. So right now, just focusing on quotes that you just don't need and converting them to paraphrases (or even removing them if you don't need them) would go a long way to bringing this to a close. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Viriditas, I've gone through and reduced the use of quotations where possible, preferring paraphrasing. Please let me know if this addresses your concerns! I also reorganized the § Psychological and social explanations section to group things together a bit more logically. Thanks Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Looks great! I will give it a final read through right now. Might take me 30 minutes. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]