This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I agree that the thing about the misquotation is the hookiest fact in the article, but it's clumsily phrased here. For one, the quote is not actually "could have been made by aliens" so, considering this is all about misquotation, we should either use the actual quote or clarify that it is a misquotation. Then "as though it was a real announcement" implies that it was actually, I don't know, a fake announcement? A parody? Also, essay collections don't speak: the chapter in question was written by William Edmonson. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot of context to try squeeze into 200 characters, so, and I can't believe I'm suggesting this, why not go with a simple April Fools-style hook:
ALT2 ... that according to a NASA essay collection, ancient carvings "might have been made by aliens"?
Definitely a tricky hook to try write. I don't mind that suggestion -- I'm happy to field more comments about it, because it's definitely a strong one, but it does lean heavy on the contradiction even for April Fool standards. Thank you! Vaticidalprophet02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: The article is long enough (>6,000 chars) and was new enough when nominated. The claims made in the article are supported by citations to reliable published sources. It presents its topic in a suitably neutral manner, not e.g. overstating the collection's importance or impact. I'm not seeing any signs of plagiarism from online sources (the only big hit is, of course, the block quotation from The Space Review). I'm approving hook ALT2; this hook is cited where the claim appears in the text and is extremely interesting; I agree that this might be a nice one to hold onto until April! The QPQ review looks good. What a nicely written article! Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing this long after the DYK appearance, but I have to note for the record that I think it was deeply irresponsible of us to run this hook. Per the article, we saw exactly what can happen when the statement is presented out of context. Further, we saw that it can happen even when context is provided later (farther down in the Gizmodo article, or on click through here). At Wikipedia, our goal is to improve the information landscape, not to leverage Ancient Aliens-level clickbait for the sake of getting more views. Yet, even after seeing directly the damage that such clickbait can do, we proceeded to...use exactly the same clickbait ourselves. And yes, this ran on April 1, but that's not a mitigating factor when we've declined to include Draft:Template:DYK humor or any other disclosure for the April Fools DYK hooks. It's just boggling. cc Bryanrutherford0 and Joe Roe. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On another day, maybe. On April Fools, surrounded by the other hooks, I think even American readers would have understood that we were ironically repeating the poor phrasing and selective quotation criticised in the article. – Joe (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe, I think you overestimate the extent to which Wikipedia readers are on the same page culturally (some aren't even in countries that celebrate it) and underestimate the difficulty of communicating irony. We did exactly the same thing as the clickbait headlines, and the fact that we don't seem to have perpetuated misinformation is purely luck/the fact that DYKs don't have all that much reach. The journalism world came to the understanding several years back that irresponsible humor can be a form of misinformation and I hope Wikipedia doesn't lag too far behind. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend moving the publication history section above the cultural impact section. That'll provide a bit more context for "was picked up by Gizmodo shortly prior to its intended publication" from the beginning of the impact material.
The lead mentions Artnet by name as one of the publications that picked up the out of context quote, but the body doesn't refer to it by name. Recommend referring to Artnet by name in the body, rather than just calling it an "other"
Is From Quarks to Quasars RS? It looks like a two-person outfit. Trosper at least appears to be a seasoned science journalist, but Creighton, the one who wrote this, appears to be a grad student specializing in environmental science?
I note the omission of a potentially important aspect of SETI, namely epidemiology. Because it is omitted from the article, I can't tell if it was also omitted from the book itself. Let me make clear that I am not only considering the science of epidemiology - noting that H.G. Wells' "The War of the Worlds" ultimately credited the defeat of the fictional Martian invasion to their lack of resistance to Earth micro-organisms - but the social and cultural effects that concern about this subject could have on an alien civilization's willingness to attempt or permit communication or actual contact with other planets. Look at our own recent social and cultural responses to COVID-19. What about the subject of allowing for an alien civilization's having experienced something similar within their own world's context, or perhaps actually having barely survived an adverse epidemic experience in a prior extra-planetary contact? Or their fear of it happening if they take hypothetical reasoning seriously? This could result in a range of responses, such as deciding never to allow such contact again (or the first time) or perhaps to react aggressively against anyone causing such a problem for them in the future. Consider the public debate that occurred in the Swedish press in the Cold War era over their destroyers' depth-charging of Soviet submarines violating their territorial waters. Some letters to the editors clearly stated that NOT doing this to NATO submarines was not true neutrality. This definitely seems to fall within the cultural or anthropological aspect of SETI, but did anyone discuss it? SvensKenR (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The article is long enough (>6,000 chars) and was new enough when nominated. The claims made in the article are supported by citations to reliable published sources. It presents its topic in a suitably neutral manner, not e.g. overstating the collection's importance or impact. I'm not seeing any signs of plagiarism from online sources (the only big hit is, of course, the block quotation from The Space Review). I'm approving hook ALT2; this hook is cited where the claim appears in the text and is extremely interesting; I agree that this might be a nice one to hold onto until April! The QPQ review looks good. What a nicely written article! Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)