Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/2024 United States drone sightings/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

2024 United States drone sightings

edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to Featured Article quality. As a subject, I think it's a fascinating case study of how misinformation and social panic can spread through a population. I've received a thorough Good Article review from Viriditas, and I think with some more refinement it might be FA-ready. I would appreciate additional input from editors, especially those interested in society and politics, skepticism, or recent American history. In particular, I'm curious whether the prose needs to be further refined or the narrative made more compelling.

Thanks, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 14:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat offensive imo to label this as "misinformation and social panic" when there was something very unique about this incident. My parents live near Bedminster/RVCC, where some of the prominent drone sightings were, and there were literally drones hovering ~50ft above people's homes. My mom told me that she could feel the windows rattling because of it and many of our neighbors reported similar experiences. There was something unique about this & I am fully convinced of the Nuclear Material Search theory, because we've never had an incident like this in the past with so many drones flying so close to our home. If there's any misinformation, it was coming from the federal government about the actual reason these drones were released. Jaayce (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a section on the Nuclear Material Search theory, and it seems to accurately reflect the sources. The words "misinformation and social panic" in editors' comment above is a fairly accurate reflection of what the Reliable Sources say (several sources use the phrase "social panic" and "moral panic" verbatim). Wikipedia article are only permitted to contain material that is extracted from WP:Reliable sources. Editors are not permitted to use words or facts based on anecdotes or personal opinion. If you are aware of any Reliable Sources that have additional information or insight, you can provide them, and they could be used for the article. Noleander (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. It must be frustrating to read an article that you think gets it totally wrong. The challenge for us as editors is that Wikipedia's role is to summarize what reliable, published sources say, not to evaluate individual eyewitness accounts directly. In this case, the consensus among official investigators and experts favours the misidentification and mass panic narrative. Alternative explanations are given due weight based on their support in those same sources. While this policy has limitations, it's what allows Wikipedia to maintain reasonable accuracy across thousands of contested topics. If you have reliable sources that support a different interpretation, I would be happy to review and discuss them. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

edit
  • Infobox looks clear & tidy. Map is super useful.
  • Ran the Earwig copyright tool: it showed no problems.
  • Cite formatting: looks good; I cannot find any issues.
  • Prose: overall, prose is great quality & meets FA requirements.
  • A bit of a duplication in two lead sentences: Investigators determined that the sightings mainly consisted of authorized drones and misidentified objects. and Independent experts concluded that people were reacting to ordinary drones and mistaken phenomena.
  • If you keep Independent experts concluded that people were reacting to ordinary drones and mistaken phenomena. .... the wording in that doesn't sound as smooth as it could be... maybe "mistaken phenomena" -> "misidentified objects". But that is getting back to that other sentence.
  • Source quailty? Congressman Michael McCaul: Drones Over Military Bases Are from China". Arlington Cardinal. December 19, 2024. This source looks really poor quality; tabloid-ish. It has these sentences Chang said really what is occurring is that China is preparing to attack the United States from American soil. I don’t know why we need an engraved invitation from Beijing. It’s clear what’s going to happen. We are going to get hit and we’re not taking the necessary precautions to protect these bases and to protect the American people. which are missing quote marks, so " We are going to get hit" is in the newspaper's voice. I realize that the Drone article won't have many academic sources .. but is there a better sources for the sentence ("Congressman Michael McCaul ... ") that the source is supporting?
  • Location ambiguity: Police located two of the men on Long Island and arrested them... I gather this "Long Island" is a place near Boston? Elsewhere, the article mentions Long Island NY with a link ... so readers may get confused. Consider removing the boston location: Police located two of the men and arrested them... or Police located two of the men near the airport and arrested them...
  • MOS:BOXQUOTE - Quote box in section 2024_United_States_drone_sightings#Ordinary_drones has a 10 bullet list from "Kyle Mizokami, Popular Mechanics (January 2, 2025)." MOS:BOXQUOTE indicates articles need to be really careful with box quotes, because those boxes put HUGE emphasis on the content. The quote box now begins "Explanations for the sightings, ranked by likelihood:.." which gives the impression that the list in the encyclopedia's voice. If you are going to keep the box, consider starting the box with "Journalist Kyle Mizokami suggests that the ten most likely explanations ... " so readers know it is not the encyclopedia's voice.
  • General before detail: However, documents later released by the TSA revealed that flight logs indicated three commercial aircraft approaching Solberg Airport (N51) had been misidentified as drones. The TSA's analysis concluded that the aircraft seemed to hover because they were flying directly towards the ground observers. The 1st sentence sounds like the WP editor is drawing the conclusion that items were misidentifed. Consider reversing the sentence order so reader is 1st told that the TSA did an analysis; then tell reader that the log indicated a misidentification.
  • ... near Raritan Valley Community College (RVCC) in New Jersey... Security supervisor Brian Serge commented,... Consider clarifying his occupation. Is he with the college mentioned in the prior sentence? if so consider ... RVCC security supervisor ...
  • Maps: the maps of US and NJ are great: very informative. Some FA reviewers may ask for a citation in the map caption that names the sources that identify the locations (texas, florida, etc). I see that all the locations are identified (with sources) in the body text, which should satisfy most reviewers. It is up to you if you want to be proactive and add cites to those map captions to prevent the issue from being raised at all.
  • FYI: "moral panic" vs "social panic". I looked at the articles moral panic and social panic, and it looks like the two articles cover a lot of the same material, and the latter article is thin and poorly sourced. It seems like sociologists/psychologists use the two terms in a very overlapping way. Google n-gram tool shows "moral panic" is more common. I added a Merge tag to the latter article at Talk:Moral_panic#Merge_Social_panic_into_Moral_panic? to see what other editors think. Does not impact the Drone article.
  • ... as a social or mass panic... Consider picking a single term "mass panic" or "social panic" and use it consistently thru the article (except when quoting a source). Sociologists/psychologists may use the two terms in a confusing & overlapping way: but that does not mean this Drone article needs to relay that confusion to the readers. Maybe add a footnote noting the two terms are both used.
  • Lead: Sightings occurred over military installations, ..... Consider qualifying "sightings" as "reported sightings" e.g. Sightings were reported over ... The article already uses "reports" and "reported" a lot, which seems consistent with the sources.
  • Government responses included flight restrictions over sensitive areas in New York and New Jersey. Federal and state officials received briefings on the incidents, and other authorities ... the word "included" leads me to think a list is following (in that sentence), but there is only one item. Consider re-wording, or perhaps bring "briefings" in to the sentence so there are two items. Not a big deal.
  • Consider eliminating "See also" section (perhaps mention some of the links in the body text). Not required for FA, but some reviewers view it as a symptom that the body text is incomplete ("if this article named in See Also is significant to the reader: why is it not mentioned in the body text?").
  • Consider adding some "author-link" fields into the sources: e.g. Bartholomew, Robert (December 13, 2024). "Social Panic Over Drones Sweeps America". Psychology Today. .. could link to Robert Bartholomew
  • Chronology? This is in the Background section: In a February 2025 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, General Gregory Guillot, head of NORAD and Northcom, stated that 350 drone incursions were reported over 100 US military bases during 2024. Is that more appropriate in the "Investigations" or "Responses" sections?
  • Punctuation inside quotes: Historian Max Boot proposed that "mass hysteria," which he identified as "a recurring feature of American life," could be a partial ... I think the MOS says that punctuation (commas in this case) should only be inside the quote if the quoted source had commas there. In these quotes, if source did not have commas there, then the commas go outside the quote.
  • Wording They stated that the DoD was unaware of the drones' operators ... can more precise wording be found? Do the sources say the identity if the operators were unknown to the DoD? If so, maybe just state it that way.
  • Within section "Proposed explanations" is subsection "Alternative explanations". It is not clear what is special about the explanations in the "Alternative explanations" group. Consider either (a) add intro sentence to top of "Alternative explanations" explaining what the content of the section is; or (b) remove the "Alternative explanations" title line, and promote the contents to peers of other "Proposed explanations"
  • New Jersey map: The icons/locations may be trying too hard. Consider making the labels more informative ("N51" -> "Solberg Airport"; "JFK" -> "JFK Airport"); and consider using the same red-dot icon for all locations (e.g. the college cap for RVCC is difficult to identify, and may have no meaning to non-US readers).
  • Image may need more text to avoid OR or UNDUE issues: The image of aircraft with condensation trails has caption A Boeing 747 with wingtip vortices Some FA reviewers may consider that WP:OR since there are no sources that say that particular model of aircraft was involved in the drone sightings. Consider avoiding that kind of issue by adding text to the caption saying that the photo illustrates condensation that is representative of the kind of airplane condensation that was discussed by the TSA in their reports/analysis (per body text "According to TSA documents released in 2025, investigators identified this with high confidence as a Beechcraft Baron 58 propeler plane experiencing turbulence, which created wingtip vortices that formed condensation clouds.")
  • I note that several citations have quotations included (in the cite). There is no problem with that, tho it is not the cleanest look. If the quotes are limited to cites that are related to particularly contentious material, then quotes are certainly justified. But if the quotes are simply on some random cites, that is a bit irregular.
  • wikilink? The "DRONE Act of 2025" would allow law enforcement to ... Additionally, the "DEFENSE Act" What is the "DEFENSE Act"? Is it the same as "DRONE Act of 2025"? If not, can a wikilink be supplied?
  • More modern wording: article mentions "Mass hysteria" but that WP article is titled "Mass psychogenic illness". If the academic community is now using the latter wording, it may be better if this article uses it also in the body text. In particular: "hysteria" suggest panic or craze, but "illness" suggests it includes more mild/calm forms of delusion ... and the latter may be more appropriate for UFO sightings that are calmly reported on social media.
  • WIkillinks: a key paragraph begins Academics and journalists described the wave of drone reports as the result of social or psychological phenomena. Neurologist William J. Bernstein suggested the phenomenon could be a case of mass delusion, a view echoed by psychologist Gary Small, who described it as a shared delusion or mass panic. Yet there are no wikilinks on those bolded phrases ... and readers will be left hanging. WP redirects "mass panic" and "mass delusion" more or less to "Mass psychogenic illness" (via "Mass hysteria"). Could Mass psychogenic illness be used as a wikilink? Personally, I see no problem with it, and a link would help readers. But I can see some reviewers considering it to be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH since the wording is not identical.
  • The cites/sources are mostly mass-market newspapers and magazines. Which is expected, based on the recent nature of the events (and lack of concrete findings). Yet, consider doing one more sweep of academic literature to see if you can find anything more scientific. FA reviewers would be unhappy if the article omitted any scientific/academic sources.
  • That's all I can find. The article is really solid, and good quality. I think if you consider the suggestions above (some are optional) it should be ready for FAC. I don't claim to have identified every issue, but the remaining issues should be within expectations for an FA nomination. Noleander (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your very thoughtful review! I've started addressing the feedback and I think your input will result in a big improvement to the article. Much appreciated! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: The two articles moral panic and social panic were merged (into moral panic). So, you should avoid linking to social panic because that is now a redirect. Noleander (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding ... consider doing one more sweep of academic literature to see if you can find anything more scientific.... If you are not aware, WP:RX and WP:TWL are good resources for such a search. Start with a search in WP:TWL, and if you find nothing, then you could ask at WP:RX. But, be warned, for RX they expect you to have the source already (they'll just fetch the content). But you could politely ask for any source on "2024 United States drone sightings" ... not sure if they'll accept such a broad request. Noleander (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/2024_United_States_drone_sightings/archive1&oldid=1320578690"