::::The article does cite scientific sources, so I don't think your characterization of the references as poor is completely fair. The scientific consensus on crop circles includes scientists who have looked into this issue and, while they may be few, none have exactly endorsed any explanation other than human artifact (i.e. hoax). The article seems quite fair and NPOV to me in that it goes out of its way to describe (without derision or mockery) claims for other causes beyond people having fun. (C.f. the Bigfoot article in which a few legitimate scientists have championed the claim that bigfoot is a real animal, and their arguments are described in detail.) Since most of the alternative explanations for crop circles are so unlikely, outre, and outrageous, the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to argue them. If you have any sources which provide that kind of argument or evidence, please add it to the article