Talk:1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 20:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 20:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice work on this article. Just a few minor copyedits and some suggestions; no issues with the sections not listed here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the review, @Pi.1415926535! I've responded below. I welcome your thoughts. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A few replies below; everything I didn't reply to looks good. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Think I've handled the remaining issues. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 03:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Passing it now, great work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

 * Infobox and lede should both clarify that this was in the US
 * ✅ -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:GEOLINK, I recommend having the link read "Huron, Ohio" instead of just "Huron"
 * The Buffalo example in GEOLINK has always been ambiguous to me as to whether the link must extend to the second-level division, or whether one may only link the locality, as in the Sydney example. My approach has been to only link locality, for accessibility reasons: To someone who has trouble distinguishing between small areas of blue and black, it's not obvious that the comma in "Huron, Ohio" is blue and thus that "Ohio" is part of the same link. (I have this exact vision problem, although I compensate for it by underlining all links in my common.css, which makes it clear when a link .) Anyways, I'm happy to ask at WT:MOSLINK for clarification on the Sydney and Buffalo examples if you'd like, but that's my thinking. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to having a discussion there to clarify - if you start it, I'll add my two cents - but I won't hold GA up over it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinged you there, but, xlink to for posterity. --  Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 03:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend having the lede sentence be shorter and just indicate the scope of the disaster. Something like On August 27, 1967, sixteen skydivers drowned in Lake Erie... Currently, you have to read the whole first paragraph to know that the disaster was drowning.
 * How's this? -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any source newer than 1992 that indicates whether there have been deadlier accidents? I know the industry intentionally hides that sort of information, so the current source and wording is fine if nothing newer is available.
 * I have been unable to find any sources more recent than the '92 article. I think that if any event had since surpassed this one for post-jump fatalities, it would have come up in my research at some point, if only in passing, but I can't prove that, hence the hedging with "as of 1992". -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead-up

 * I recommend left-aligning the image so that it doesn't get pushed down by the infobox. (I know that image alignment can be controversial, but I find that keeping images with the accompanying text is most important.)
 * I'm relatively pro-sandwiching as well, when it's a lesser of two evils. ✅. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Worth linking "Ortner Airport" to List of airports in Ohio where it's mentioned?
 * I'm not sure. I previously had this redlinked, but at Articles for deletion/Ortner Airport, User:TheLongTone made a case against notability. While that AfD wasn't precedential because it ended in a speedy deletion, I looked myself and found I couldn't argue with their assessment. (If sources do exist, it's somewhere very specialist.) I suppose I could link to that list, probably through a redirect, but I'm not sure if the list gives any useful information to the reader that isn't already in this article. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Same GEOLINK change for Wakeman, Ohio
 * Per above. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Link to aircraft registration before listing the number
 * The letter "N" is linked to, a redirect to . Is that too subtle? -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's a hair too subtle - the reader shouldn't have to click on the link to know what the number is supposed to be. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * . -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 03:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Were both the 20k and 30k jumpers to deploy chutes at 3k feet? If so, change They were to All were.
 * The Time source does not say what height the 30k jumpers would deploy at. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would then clarify in the article that the 20k jumpers would open at 3k, as the current wording is ambiguous. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've actually just cut it entirely. I say later that they did jump at that height, so it would only be worth mentioning the planned jump height if it were different from what actually happened. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 03:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Incident

 * The first sentence here most duplicates the last sentence in the previous section.
 * -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

 * following days, the final body being --> following days; the final body was
 * ✅ -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you've created Freeman v. United States (1975); I would recommend creating Dreyer v. United States (1972), Freeman v. United States, and Dreyer v. United States as additional redirects. Not a GA requirement, obviously, but worth doing real quick.
 * The PTOPIC for Freeman is almost certainly this 2011 case, and PTOPIC on Dreyer is ambiguous between the '72 case and some recent 9th Circuit cases, but I've created the date-disambiguated Dreyer. Good catch. Think I had meant to do that at some point.  --  Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 20:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Overall

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: