Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009.

Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

 * Nominator(s): Crum375 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a self nomination. The article was started when the accident occurred in 2006, and kept evolving as news was trickling in, until the final report was issued at the end of 2008. It has been very stable since that time. It has been listed as a GA since April 2007, and has recently been reviewed by several editors with FA expertise, whose issues have hopefully been addressed. Thank you for your consideration. Crum375 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments just a quick first read, I'll give a proper review if I get time.
 * Why is the altitude conversion ft/km, rather than ft/m? I'd expect heights to be ft/m and distances to be mi/km
 * The primary international aviation units in much of the world are feet for altitude and nautical miles for distance. For example, FL370 (which played a critical role in this accident) is "Flight Level" 37,000 feet everywhere. So these units are used as the primary ones when the focus is the aviation perspective. To make the values more understandable for general readers, many of whom (internationally) understand best the metric units, we add a metric value. For ease of reading, the height and distance for small numbers (e.g. less than a couple of thousand) is expressed in meters, and for larger values in km (there is no "FL" equivalent for meters, AFAIK, so km is an approximate equivalent). Since these are templates, it's easy to switch to any desired combination of primary/secondary values. My only concern is to have an aviation focused primary value, and for reduction of clutter, preferably no more than one secondary, and metric is best. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * still seems odd to me, not a big deal though jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? Crum375 (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the point of the list of deaths section? If it's notable, it should be a proper section, but imho opinion it isn't and should be relegated to a footnote or perhaps an external link...
 * It is notable in the sense that the list has been published in Brazilian newspapers. It is also important because it adds a human dimension to a mostly technical accident article; otherwise it's all dry, impersonal facts. I like the concept that the list is hidden by default, and available for interested readers instantly, at the click of a mouse. The problem with using external links is that they take longer to come up, come up in a different browser window, are cluttered with extraneous information, and are in a foreign language in this case. I know if I were the reader, I'd find the hide/show passenger list a good resource, but I defer to the consensus here for this issue. As you say, it can be an EL only, or a footnote. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, see what others think jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...speaking of which, the ELs seem to be a total ratbag - at least three items are linked in the text and shouldn't be ELs, and the crashes outside Brazil seem of only peripheral relevance. I'd dump all but the last EL (jimfbleak) (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which ones? I am confused. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Traffic Collision Avoidance System, 2006–2007 Brazilian aviation crisis, Vasp Flight 168 and TAM Airlines Flight 3054 are already wikilinked in article, no need to repeat in EL. Varig Flight 254, 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision and Tenerife airport disaster seem to of dubious relevance other than as major crashes. The List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft is a suitable EL jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you are referring to the "See also" list (which are wiki-links), not the EL (External links list). For "See also", the applicable MOS guideline is WP:See also, which includes the statement: "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." In the article under review, the See also items were selected based on editorial judgment that a reader may want to read more about these related issues to gain a better perspective. I have removed a couple of items from that list, leaving a total of six items at the moment. Since this accident had a record in fatalities for Brazil, we provide the reader wiki-links to other related record accidents for perspective: the deadliest one before; the one after (deadliest in Brazil so far); an earlier crash in the same general area which could have averted disaster had they used the "jungle strip" used by the Embraer in this accident; the deadliest collision anywhere (which eerily had the identical flight number!), and the deadliest aviation accident anywhere. Adding perspective is a common goal of the "See also", and repeating a small number of items which may already be wiki-linked in the main text is allowed per editor's discretion, as are two out of the current six here. Having said all that, it's no problem to remove any "See also" item, if the reviewers here feel it's needed. Crum375 (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review:
 * The "author" field of File:2006FABGolSelva.jpg lists it as being taken by the Brazilian Air Force, while it's tagged as being taken by a Brazilian news agency. My Portuguese is rusty, so I can't tell from the source which it is.
 * Both the BAF and Agência Brasil, (now part of "Empresa Brasil de Comunicação" or EBC) are run by the Brazilian government, and all Agência Brasil's images are public domain, as stated at the bottom of every page. If you click on the source link for the image you specify, and look at the bottom of the page, you'll see "O conteúdo deste site é publicado sob uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 2.5. Brasil. [The content of this site is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. Brazil]" This is true for all their images (don't we wish all were like that? ;^)). You will also note the URL for Agência Brasil, "www.agenciabrasil.gov.br", shows it's a government site. Crum375 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That clarifies somewhat, but now I'm confused: are the images claimed to be in the public domain, or released under the CC license? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As i quoted above, the media pages on this government site state at the bottom: "the content of this site is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. Brazil." As I understand it, they are releasing their media to the public via the CCA-2.5 license. This is how we label the media uploaded to WP or the Commons. Is there some other needed procedure or mechanism? Crum375 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, it seems clear to me that they're released under the CC license. You just confused me when you said that they were in the public domain, but I gather that that was a misspeak on your part. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was speaking loosely, sorry. Crum375 (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Same with File:DamagedLegacyInvolvedinGol1907.jpg, File:Legacy2 fab.jpg, and File:Legacy1 fab.jpg.
 * Yes, see my above reply, for all Agência Brasil images.
 * File:Caixa-Preta GOL.jpg lacks author information, and looks like it might be another situation like the above.
 * Yes, all Agência Brasil images are CC 2.5, as you can see at the bottom of the source page. Crum375 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Same with File:GravadoVoz.jpg.
 * Yes, again see the bottom of the source page for the CC 2.5 license. Crum375 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Br-map1.jpg lacks author information, and I strongly suspect that the underlying map comes from a different source (possibly a non-free one) than the lines drawn on to it.
 * The original is this one, which originally comes from the CIA site, and the lines were added by a Wikipedian and released to PD. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, good; that information needs to be added to the image description page, though. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Both File:H4-BRS.jpg and File:H4-Teres.jpg lack full source information ("DOD FLIGHT INFORMATION PUBLICATION ENROUTE HIGH ALTITUDE CARIBBEAN AND SOUTH AMERICA" is not an adequate source citation), and both contain the rather dubious quote "Copyright 2006 by the United States Government. No copyright claimed under Title 17 U.S.C.". Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 08:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are cropped from the same instrument navigation chart, published by the U.S. DOD in 2006, and are therefore public domain, as works created by the US Federal Government in their official duties, per Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. I'll try to find the original website which hosted the charts. Crum375 (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So "Copyright 2006 by the United States Government" is an error? As for the source, if you can't find the website that's not critical, but if you could clarify on the description pages exactly what the source is that would be great. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but as I understand it, the US government is saying they have copyright in principle, as they do for all their works, but they are specifically waiving it for distribution per Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105. So they state (I am quoting from the top of the original source hi-res PDF file, which I still have): "(c) Copyright 2006 by the United States Government. No copyright claimed under Title 17 U.S.C. DOD." As far as I know, this is their standard language, but correct me if I am wrong. Crum375 (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added clarification on the image description pages that the source is the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), 2006. Crum375 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never seen that wording, but since it's straight from the source I'll assume that the U.S. government probably knows better than I do. If you are able to find the link, that would be preferable. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of another DOD publication, this one currently online, with the same wording (see the bottom right of each page, in red). Crum375 (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another example, this one by the United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Crum375 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another one, this one also aviation charting related. Crum375 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.airliners.net/
 * Airliners.net is one of the largest aviation websites in the world, and as far as I know has the largest database of high quality photos of airliners. It is a commercial operation and has people vetting its content, esp. its media. I would not trust them for anything technical or controversial, only for links to photos of aircraft, which typically are self verifying (the tail number is a unique identifier). In this article, we use them only for this image link, where you can clearly see the Gol 1907 tail number (PR-GTD). I am not aware of any case where anyone has ever falsified an image there, and if anyone did it would hurt their bottom line, so they have a good incentive to keep their reliability and reputation high. Overall, they are a good (and unique) resource for WP's aviation articles, as long as we stick to self-verifying photos. Crum375 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having said all that, I have moved it to the EL section, as it's not really supporting anything in the main text, but still of interest to see. Crum375 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return
 * I agree, they shouldn't be forced to leave for an abbreviation. What I tried to do is to always link to the full expanded version of the wiki article, so you can instantly see the full version by just placing the mouse over the abbreviation, with no need to click or leave the article. My concern was that expanding them would create too much clutter and require more scrolling, without adding useful information. If you feel this method of instant abbreviation expansion via mouse placement is unacceptable, I can take out the short form from the wiki-link. Crum375 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, it's a good idea to give authors when they are known. Many of the magazine articles lack the author name, even when it's given on the webpage linked to. It's not a requirement per se, but best usage is to give all known information on a source.
 * My concern here was uniformity and consistency. In many cases we don't have the authors, as you say, and in some we do. I felt that including the authors in the few cases we have them will make the ones where we don't appear awkward or less valuable (which they aren't). If there was something very controversial in a source, I would still include the name, but all critical or controversial information in the article is sourced to official U.S. and Brazilian government reports, which are normally nameless. And if a reader is interested in reading a source, they'll see the name (if available) immediately as they click on the link. So I guess it's a matter of my personal preference for consistency unless it's unavoidable, but if you still feel that we should include the writers' names wherever available, I'll put them in. Crum375 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I'm on the fence about the airliners.net source, but do agree it's nothing controversial it's referencing. I just prefer full names and full information when known, that's all. I know that a lot of times newswire articles won't have a byline, but that doesn't make something coming from a reputable newspaper any less valuable, so I don't discount such sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See above regarding the airliners.net source, which I have demoted to EL. Crum375 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. See Template:Infobox Aircraft accident/testcases for a suggestion for the lead image. Eubulides (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added alts for the images where I felt it would add information to the visually impaired beyond the caption. Thanks for the suggestion for the lead image, which I adopted verbatim. Your comments about the alts would be appreciated, as I have never done them before. Crum375 (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I tweaked that alt text a bit. However, there should be alt text for every image. For example, Image:Gol B737-800 Curitiba.jpg, the first image that lacks alt text, is captioned "A similar model of the Gol aircraft" which says nothing about visual appearance other than "aircraft". That image should have alt text that says something like "mid-sized twin-engine passenger jet with red-and-white GOL logo, whose wings end in 2-meter upturned winglets, on an airport runway". Similarly for the other images lacking alt text. Eubulides (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I followed your lead and got all the remaining images. Thanks for your help. Crum375 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1a. This looks to be well-researched, and it was an interesting read. However, the writing style is quite jarring. Many of the sentences are long series of prepositional and other phrase types separated by commas—reading is labored as a result. I really think this could use the services of an independent copyeditor to smooth these out and reword them for readability. Examples of problem sentences:
 * The first sentence of the lead.
 * "The newly built twin turbofan Embraer Legacy 600 business jet, serial number 965 and registration N600XL, owned and operated by ExcelAire Service Inc., a Ronkonkoma, Town of Islip, New York-based company, was on a delivery flight from the Embraer factory to the U.S."
 * "It departed from São José dos Campos Regional Airport (SJK), near São Paulo, at 14:51 BST, and was on its way to Eduardo Gomes International Airport (MAO) in Manaus as a planned en route stop."
 * "The five passengers consisted of two Embraer employees, two ExcelAire executives, and The New York Times business travel columnist Joe Sharkey, who was writing a special report for Business Jet Traveler, a magazine specializing in corporate jets."
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On deeper reading of these example, it looks like the main problem is that you're trying to incorporate too many ideas in one sentence. Take, for example, the second bullet. You've introduced the plane, gave its information, and stated who owned and operated it... which is enough for one sentence. However, you went on to state where they operate, and then what the plane was doing and where it was. That's a lot for one sentence, and it creates the need for multiple phrases. Consider instead:
 * "The twin turbofan Embraer Legacy 600 business jet, serial number 965 and registration N600XL, was newly built by owner/operator ExcelAire Service Inc. of Ronkonkoma, New York. It was on a delivery flight from the Embraer factory to the U.S."
 * In fact, with the fat trimmed off a bit, you could almost make that into one sentence again:
 * "The twin turbofan Embraer Legacy 600 business jet, serial number 965 and registration N600XL, was newly built by owner/operator ExcelAire Service Inc. of Ronkonkoma, New York and was on a delivery flight from the Embraer factory to the U.S."
 * I think you could solve many of the problem sentences by either breaking them up, if they present multiple ideas, or trimming the unneeded words as I did here, or both. Hope this helps. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your example changes the meaning, since the jet was built by the Embraer factory, not its new owners/operators. But I tried to follow your logic and simplify the sentence anyway, like this:
 * "The twin turbofan Embraer Legacy 600 business jet, serial number 965 and registration N600XL, newly built by Embraer and purchased by ExcelAire Service Inc. of Ronkonkoma, New York, was on a delivery flight by its new owners/operators from the Embraer factory to the U.S."
 * If this sounds better (or needs further tweaking), please let me know. Then I can try to do the rest. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is looking a lot better and more concise. This is one that could be combined, but there may be some can could be broken up. It'll be a judgment call. I appreciate your willingness to work on it! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think perhaps it's a matter of style: I personally like to squeeze as much information as possible into every sentence, and feel that broken up tidbits impede the flow, though I realize that I don't necessarily represent the typical reader. But I did revise all your examples, including the lead. If there are any more you feel need simplification, please let me know and I'll break them up too. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a note, the sentence you mention as "problematic": "It departed from São José dos Campos Regional Airport (SJK), near São Paulo, at 14:51 BST, and was on its way to Eduardo Gomes International Airport (MAO) in Manaus as a planned en route stop" originally followed the other one(s), which is now hopefully better. I am not sure if anything else needs to be done with this sentence now, since it's pretty straightforward. If I am wrong, please let me know. Crum375 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments I have followed this article since its creation, and am thrilled it has been developed into such an excellent source of information. A couple of nitpicks and questions:
 * Is it customary to refer to aircraft by their manufacturer, rather then by operator (e.g. "the Embraer pilots" and "Boeing aircraft" rather than "the ExcelAire pilots" and "Gol aircraft")?
 * In my experience of reading accident reports in professional publications over many years, yes. The aircraft type is typically the short form for the aircraft in a report, presumably because factually and objectively all we really know is that the aircraft did X or Y, though we presume that most of it (but not always all) was controlled or caused by the crews. Another reason is that the government (which is normally the main investigator) looks at accidents from air traffic control perspective, and controllers primarily think in terms of aircraft types, not crews. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "though its autopilot disengaged and the required manual control inputs were high, especially at slower speeds." I can't really make sense of this—is there any way to make it more lay-friendly? Does this mean they had trouble manually controlling the aircraft?
 * Yes, they had trouble manually controlling the aircraft, in the sense that it required a significant force on the control yoke to keep the wings level. I'll add a footnote explaining it. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Should " Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and Flight data recorder (FDR)" be capitalized?
 * Good catch &mdash; there is an inconsistency there. I think it should be capitalized, following the logic of WP:MOS and the CMoS, so I'll fix it. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "The Brazilian Air Force sent five fixed-wing aircraft and three helicopters to the region, one of which equipped with a magnetic anomaly detector, for an extensive search and rescue operation." Is there a reference for this? Which aircraft was equipped with a magnetic anomaly detector, a plane or a helicopter?
 * I believe this was added by someone right after the accident in 2006, with some Portuguese news articles as reference. Since I can't find the source at the moment, and it's not at all critical, I'll remove it pending identification of the specific source. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When did the NTSB issue its report?
 * Per the NTSB's website, they sent CENIPA a draft on November 18, 2008, and CENIPA then incorporated it inside their own report, which was issued on December 8, 2008. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the copy-edits and your comments. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.