::::Please.  No-one mentioned pseudoscience.  MECOs are not pseudoscience.  However, they do not have nearly the volume of scientific literature investigating them as black holes do, nor have they (yet) been subsumed by the greater body of theoretical analysis.  As yet, they are still a new, largely uncorroborated (recent popular reporting notwithstanding) theory, which may or may not turn out to work.  I take exception to being told to read Popper.  If you had actually read what I wrote above, you would have seen that I referred to black holes as being falsified: if this is not a direct reference to Popperian ideas then I do not know what is.  Nonetheless, Popper is by no means the last word on the matter.  I think the idea is weird and bizarre, personally, but I have seen how they seem to be a natural consequence of general relativity.  Anyway, black holes are a fact in as much as they drop out of relativistic equations.  They are real constructs, so to speak, which may or may not exist "out there".  The article makes it clear that no-one has found something that is definitely a black hole, etc. etc.  But black holes, as theoretical constructs, do have certain properties, and the article describes those: same as the MECO article describes various properties that a MECO, as a theoretical construct, would have.  Why are black holes junk science, though?  I never knew they were tools of political manipulation or anything like that!  
 ::::More importantly, what specifically in the article needs changing? Also, since this article is in fairly good shape at the moment, are you able to help clean up the MECO article?  I have done a bit, but it needs a Hell of a lot of work.