I noticed today a question, which was only lightly edited by a mod, so apparently there was nothing blatantly wrong with it, but which to me seems to fit the following pattern:
- quote notable claim from some science publication (A)
- counter-oppose it an unquoted counter-claim as possibly the real explanation/phenomenon (B)
(Top-voted) answer is devoted mostly to busting B, rather any serious/additional investigation about claim A.
Of course, it's better if questions include a reason for skepticism, so some kind of "B" is better than none. But what to do with questions, which to me sound like XY questions, in which the real question is (the unpublished) claim B? According to Skeptics.SE notability guidelines, if the real question is B then it should be the one supported by quotes etc.