Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Airlines Flight 77


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:49, 24 June 2008.

American Airlines Flight 77
Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has recently been expanded with new sources, new information, and more comprehensively. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support
 * I don't think you're going to provide us with cheery articles, VegitaU. I think your next FAC should be about that cat that is a train stationmaster in Japan. It has its own little hat. I laughed at that article...
 * One of your sentences starts with 125. You'll have to spell it out or restructure the sentence.
 * I had to read this sentence several times, and I'm still not sure what it's saying By 17:30 on September 11, Army engineers determined that no one remained alive in the building
 * You'll have to change The Pentagon Memorial is currently being constructed in memory of those who lost their lives both at the Pentagon and aboard American Airlines Flight 77 to "as of 2008" instead of "currently".
 * This article includes a very brief mention of the conspiracy theories. What's your view on the material in the article? It seems very short for the mention, but I understand if you don't want to lend credence to ideas that are not based on sound evidence.
 * Cats with tiny hats next time. --Moni3 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: I've made the changes you requested. Please let me know if they make sense or if you would like me to reword in a different manner. As for conspiracy theories, I've seen two ways of handling it. One way, like Apollo 11, only has a link in the "See also" section to the hoax article. Another way, like the John F. Kennedy assassination, has a paragraph briefly skimming the allegations. When I started editing the article, I didn't want to take a huge eraser to what was already there&mdash;the paragraph. Since Flight 77, like United Airlines Flight 93, is a major point to conspiracy theorists, I'm willing to leave a small paragraph linking to the main article on conspiracy theories. I'm open to suggestions, however.


 * And if I see that cat curling up on bin Laden's lap, I may consider expanding it. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Gary King ( talk ) 23:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * For consistency, italicise all the newspaper titles, not just some of them. (in the references)
 * What makes http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0203/S00134.htm a reliable source?
 * Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: Ok. I've italicized the sources. There should be clear instructions for when to use work and when to use publisher in citations. And the Riskus thing that linked to the Scoop is gone. I tracked it down to the State Department page, but it looks like the State Department is also using iffy sources of information (a GeoCities site and a broken link). Forgot to sign for some reason. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you drop the Scoop reference? And, yes, I agree, it's hard to understand the templates sometimes...
 * Yes, i dropped it completely. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as far as prose goes. TONY   (talk)  04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Oppose Looks good.

— Bellhalla (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Response: Thanks for the thorough review. I have fixed everything point you mentioned as well some some other oddities I found. I guess I'm still not too familiar with the citation templates to know when publisher or work should be used. I changed everything to work based on a review above and that's what resulted in most of the mess-ups. Please let me know if there's anything else you have questions about. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is my first look at the article after the recent changes, and this is just a brief look. Here are some points to address:
 * In the prose, I see a number of spots with awkward wording (e.g. "believed to have", "it is possible", ...).
 * I fixed some of this, but a lot comes directly from the 9/11 commission report itself. If the commission says 'it is possible', I can't very well speculate that 'he definitely did' whatever. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There should be a section on rebuilding the Pentagon and construction of the Pentagon memorials.
 * This isn't the article on the Pentagon. Like Flight 11 and 175 shouldn't have a section on rebuilding the trade center. It's just about the flight and the flight ended with the crash, recovery of bodies and equipment. Add detail about the memorial on the memorial article. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Pentagon article needs to cover 60+ years of history, from construction, Vietnam War, renovations, 9/11, and other aspects. Per summary style, this article is the place to go into more depth about what happened at the Pentagon as the result of the Flight 77 crash.  It certainly is appropriate and necessary to include some discussion of reconstructing the Pentagon and the memorials, more than just the passing mention that is in the article now.  We don't need excessive detail either, and we can link to the Pentagon Memorial and the Pentagon Renovation Program articles for further information. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The collapse time (10:15) is good, with a good source. A number of other sources out there get it wrong.
 * For the witnesses, the article should mention about Steve Riskus as a witness, with his camera, taking some of the first photographs.
 * I deleted the Riskus thing because I couldn't find a rock-solid source for it. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He's more difficult to source because he self-published his pictures on his website. Many sources are more anecdotal, though one of his pictures is included the ASCE report, the 9/11 Digital Archive , and Popular Mechanics mentions him. There may be other sources, which I will look for. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the aircraft debris found?
 * Added info on this. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that information about the debris belongs in the recovery section. Firefighters and others in the Pentagon (evacuating or during rescue/recovery) found not only the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, but I know they found things like airplane seats.  Some even contained victims.  I'm quite sure Rick Newman mentions these details, though not sure the page number.  I can try to address this, though I'm on wikibreak for the month or so and can't promise lots of time to work on the article now. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What about personal effects found, which belonged to hijackers? Like we mentioned Satam al-Suqami's passport on the American Airlines Flight 11 page.  Some were also found at the Pentagon.
 * You're right about that. Even I didn't know about Nawaf's ID. Added. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, there is some legit material on Youtube - that's where Judicial Watch and Scott Bingham posted the videos obtained from FOIA. This a case where I think such links are okay.  This animation  is also legit, posted to YouTube by the copyright owner.  Purdue University also did some simulation and modeling of the crash and subsequent fires, and produced some animations.
 * I'll have to wait for some definite consensus opinion to add a youtube link. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These links can be included on a case-by-case basis. See WP:EL. What I mention are all legitimate YouTube video links. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What was Donald Rumsfeld doing? I know his office was on the other side of the Pentagon and not in proximity to the crash area.  I also know that he came outside soon after the crash to help out, but then realize he was needed elsewhere.
 * Added this. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think more could be done with this. The fact that he came out to help, I think help load some victims onto stretchers probably could go in a different section than talking about the casualties.  That he left his office meant that he wasn't right there to speak with other government officials (e.g. the Vice President), though I know his deputy was there and handled that.  Then, what about further response on an official level to keep the DOD operating?  He could have gone to Site R (a backup site), but I think they sent Paul Wolfowitz. With Rumsfield's personality (known as stubborn), he insisted the Pentagon keep operating. The National Military Command Center continued to operate, even with smoke coming in.  In the rest of the building, the power mostly stayed on.  Rumsfeld had people come to work the next day at the Pentagon.  I know that Steve Vogel talks quite a bit about this in his book.  Again, I will try to address this, but can't promise much time right now to work on it. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I had added something about this in May with a link to the NPR interview with Rick Newman and Patrick Creed.  This could be readded (with the NPR reference which people might like to hear) and expanded upon. Don't need to go into excessive detail, but something should be said about how the DOD responded through the ordeal. --Aude (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For the sources, there are some other offline sources that I think are worth consulting for this article to make it more comprehensive. These include The Pentagon by Steve Vogel was published in 2007.  It is more broad than 9/11, but talks a bit about 9/11 and rebuilding the section of the building. Another is Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon On 9/11, which is recently out, though it may duplicate much of the information covered in  Pentagon 9/11.  I think these kind of sources add depth to articles and help improve article quality.
 * I think the article is pretty comprehensive. If you have these sources on hand, please feel free to add whatever information you believe I may have left out. I'm not going to go and buy these books, however. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. These kind of sources help piece together the bits and facts from news articles, and provide added depth.  I will do what I can, but have limited time for Wikipedia at the moment while on wikibreak. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The see also link needs to go. Instead, there could be see also links to the other three flights hijacked.
 * It's gone. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all I see after a brief skim through the page. It's late for me, so I can't do more detailed review or editing now. I should have more time tomorrow to review and edit. --Aude (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Added. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll address your further points later. I don't have much time right now. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Addressed every point to the best of my knowledge. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

More comments That's all for now. I will be back for more review and try to make time to help address points myself. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Something else that is lacking is discussion of how the Pentagon structure held up to the crash. The fact that this section was recently renovated, with reinforced concrete, blast-resistant windows, ... and the nature of the structure compared to the twin towers is something to address in the article.  The ASCE report is a good source for this.
 * The section about the hijackers... Something should be added about how these five hijackers worked together largely separate (in San Diego and Arizona) from all the others. And, that Hani Hanjour was not part of the Hamburg Cell.


 * Note same kinds of MoS issues as the last aircrash FAC; WP:PUNC, WP:NBSP, etc. Perhaps ask User:Epbr123 to do a runthrough, but better to learn MoS.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Sorry about that. I've made some changes regarding these issues. I try to put non-breaking spaces when I remember, but oftentimes I forget completely. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a real mess (not your fault :-) in capitalization of The Pentagon; I spent a while looking at it, and I'm not clear if our article is correct. Is it The Pentagon or the Pentagon?  Should our article be at Pentagon (building)?  Can you track down which is correct?  It's inconsistent in the article. Also, pls ping to see if Aude plans to revisit.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per their website, it seems to be "the Pentagon". -- VegitaU (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.