Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hainan Island incident


 * 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 23:13, 18 April 2009.

Hainan Island incident

 * Nominator(s): &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera!,  — BQZip01 —  talk, John

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a very well-written, very clear description of a famous incident. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The article does appear to be in fairly good shape, but have you consulted the significant contributors to the article, per the FAC-instructions? Two major contributors to the article appear to be actively editing it as recently as the last 24 hours. Maralia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did contact User:John, and I think he's just tidying, really. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. I am glad to see that John supports the article's nomination; it's difficult to address issues raised by reviewers without the help of the editors who wrote and sourced the article's content. Multiple nominators are perfectly acceptable here; it would be appropriate to offer co-nomination to those editors who have significantly contributed to the article. Maralia (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I confirm that I am aware of and support this nomination. I think the article is well-written and well-sourced. I know there were some problems in the past with edit-warring and NPOV concerns, so I have put a lot of work into trying to make the sourcing as good as it can be and verifiable to avoid this. --John (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What John said... — BQZip01 —  talk 06:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Technical Review
 * Disambiguation and external links all check out up to standards, however, there is a self redirect to the article.
 * Ref formatting checks out fine with the WP:REFTOOLS script--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   02:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

images should be alternated left and right to balance the article per MOS Fasach Nua (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --John (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain, generally images should face into the text, and is the only exception to the left/right rule, so File:LockheedEP-3E_VQ-1_2001-2009-29-03.jpg might have to go on the left, and the line of troops should maybe swap with Bush so they are facing inwards. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I can't reverse the images of planes as they show text. I can't move the returning crew or the Bush photo as they need to stay in the section they illustrate. Feel free to have a hack yourself. --John (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What about switching the Bush image with the "EP crew" image directly opposite? I previewed it and it makes the paragraphs get a little funky (on my screen, at least) but other than that it looked ok. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks, you're right, it does look better. --John (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * see here. I reversed it, but of course the plane number is reversed.  No way to fix that.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --John (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I was incorrect (One of these days I'll cadge John's secrets). Anyway, the planes now appear to be in opposition which is perfect.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now, because... Once these issues are taken care of, I can take a second look. Best, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * the intro section doesn't summarise the whole article (WP:LEAD). Once you beef it up a little, I can reconsider.
 * the references seem a little mixed up. For example, you have some book references (Osborn, Brooks) separated out into a Bibliography section and given in shortened footnotes within the refs, and you have other book references (i.e., Peebles) given in long form directly in the References section; I don't know the official rules, but I think if you're going to have some refs separated into Bibliography and short-form footnotes, you should do the same for all book sources.  Also, the Osborn book listed in "Bibliography" is never cited in the text, so shouldn't it go under a "Further reading" header instead?  (I got confused looking through the footnotes trying to find Osborn).  Finally, this is just a minor thing, but for the online references you generally give the publisher/work as a website (un.org, bbc.co.uk), and you should probably convert those to the actual publisher names (United Nations, BBC Online, etc.).
 * Fixed refs, thanks. --John (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, struck that part. Having article titles in italics rather than quotes looks strange to me, but since it's consistent throughout the article it's not a problem. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Osborn, Shane (2001),was move to Further reading (I think John beat me to it).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Beefed up intro slightly too; I think this answers the first criticism. --John (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I still think it's a bit lacking, though&mdash;there's currently nothing about the aftermath or impact of the incident (other than saying the US wrote a letter) or its importance.  That is to say, not just the aftermath/impact of the crash, but the aftermath/impact of the entire political incident (ie, the aftermath of the aftermath of the crash) and how if affected US/China relations, etc. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 12:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge this comment. I intend to do something later today about it, if nobody else does. --John (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Such a section would be welcomed, but, that presupposes that 9/11 didn't overshadow the incident to the point that not much was written about the aftermath.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That sums up the problem fairly well. I can add a sourced statement to the effect that there was criticism of both sides' handling of the crisis, and that it was Dubya's first real foreign policy crisis, but that is about all I can find and it seems pretty thin. However I think Rjanag is right and that it ought to go in, thin though it may be. --John (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK to me. As of 2009, there was no real impact as economic concerns on the part of both countries, and the US obsession with the war on terror precluded any lasting effects.  That the incident happened should be sufficient in this case.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to address this concern by adding a little about the political reaction, and a tiny addition to the lede. Please feel free to suggest further improvements. --John (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from Ealdgyth 14:09, 29 March 2009-
 * Need to move the Osborn book to a further reading section.
 * Note about the above oppose, it's not necessary to have ALL the books in a short form, you can do what this article does and put the most used ones in a bibliography and do a full citation for books that are only used once or twice. This article has a perfectly acceptable form of referencing.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.
 * Thanks Ealdgyth, that makes sense.  I have stricken my comments about the shortened footnotes (I still think it would look a lot cleaner if all the books were treated the same, but that's just my personal style so I won't let this get hung up over it), although I still have concerns about the formatting of the other references. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you, I think the short footnotes with longer bibliography looks a lot better, but it's all a matter of personal preference. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - if the lead image is from Xinhua, then why is it licensed under on Commons? —  Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  22:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice question. I've asked the editor who added this attribution where it came from. I have also asked the original uploader of the image at Commons where it came from. --John (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently this was the photo's credit when Air Forces Monthly ran it. It would qualify as fair use I think, but I am happy to remove it from the article pending clarification of its status. --John (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now done so.--John (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a similar photo that Air Forces Monthly ran with, but not this one. I have re-uploaded it and replaced the lead image as it is not a PD image, but an irreplaceable historical image that cannot be faithfully reproduced. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Few image concerns as follows:
 * File:KampfflugzeugF-8China-2009-29-03.jpg: per MOS:IMAGES, "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. [...] However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption." This image is a derivative work made in an attempt to comply with the MOS facing rule.  However, there is no advantage to doing so (why not put the two aircraft images on the left, separated by the map on the right?), and by flipping the plane and "re-aligning" its designation, we might be presenting a false representation of the physical structure of the Chinese jet (If a F-15 is flipped, is anyone going to claim that the M-61 is accurately on the left side?).
 * File:Schina sea 88.png: which map among these is this picture?
 * Nevermind, I just found where it was. Jappalang (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Steve and pres.jpg (source for File:Steve and pres-2009-29-03.jpg): is the photographer a White House photographer, or is he or she Blocher's family or friend who took the photo during Bush's visit of the airman? If it is not a White House photographer, we need the explicit permission of the person who took the image.
 * removed pending verification. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for deletion. Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * File:EP-3 Hainan Island 2001.jpg: the non-free version of the plane in question. I am on the fence with this (inclining to believe its fair use is warranted as an identifying image).  This is listed here to see if anyone has objections to its use as such.  Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Ep3 crew.jpg: I prefer the original File:EP-3's crew return.jpg; it does not shift the focus to Towne alone, showing the crew as they emerge from the plane. VIRIN: 010412-F-0848C-003 (Richard Pray's return) might be even better. Note: this point is not an actionable item, just a suggestion.
 * Some should be easily resolved. Awaiting feedback.  Jappalang (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd keep the one with Towne, though the wider shot would be more appropriate, IMHO. The one with Towne saluting shows the entire crew whereas the one featuring the marine doesn't show them all (some are blocked by him). — BQZip01 —  talk 06:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the wider shot would be better; it is the call of you and your fellow nominators. Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the first point by replacing the flipped pic with File:KampfflugzeugF-8China-2009-01-04.jpg, which is a crop and switching the map per your suggestion. I'll take a look at the other issues tomorrow. --John (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Public domain images have been verified. The copyrighted image claimed for fair use is up for discussion, but in my current opinion adequately serves as an identification of this incident.  Jappalang (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: a shot of most of the EP-3E crew is available at http://web.archive.org/web/20051230194044/www.pacom.mil/imagery/archive/0104photos/index.shtml. Look for the John A. Giles photo at the bottom. This could conceivably be placed in the "On the ground" section since it mentioned the crew complement, or not... Jappalang (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - this was pretty big news in its day, and while I don't expect a minute-by-minute account, I would hope for at least something from the relevant NYT stories. And please, more book sources!, , , , , , , , , , , , , , -- that's just a start of what's out there. Also, the footnotes are in disarray. Treaty titles are not in italics; neither are news article titles, which should be in quotes. Note 1 is just a link; note 24 doesn't tell us the date of retrieval, etc. A good start, but there's more work to be done. - Biruitorul Talk 02:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What would the NYT references (I've read them) add to the ones we already have? I am not convinced this would be an improvement, let alone a necessary improvement. Similarly, while some of these book sources are interesting, and some even contain material which could be incorporated into the article, many of them are just mentions and add nothing to what we already have, or else go into (I think) unnecessary detail about the political aspects of the matter. Andrew Brookes is a specialist writer on aviation safety with a military background, so he is a pretty credible source for much of the material we have. If you honestly think there is a problem with the sources then I will reconsider but I think it is pretty well-referenced. On the formatting issue, I am not clear what you are saying; most of these footnotes are template-generated. News articles being in quotes I can understand and I will implement this.--John (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * About the ref formatting...I think I expressed a similar concern above, but my general feeling is that, yeah the titles in italics seem a bit weird, but since they're consistent throughout the article it doesn't seem like a major problem. Of course, I personally would prefer to see them in quotes, but their being in italics isn't (imo) a reason to oppose outright, as long as they are consistent. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 06:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Question What is this (currently ref #31) supposed to be: "" r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 06:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It refers to an article on Economist.com, which I am reading here. However it is (I think) subscriber-only and I was unsure how best to indicate that in the reference. Any suggestions? --John (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A title, at the least, would be useful. (Author would also be nice, but it looks like there isn't one listed, at least not in the blurb.)  Most of the article does seem to be behind a paywall, but the link might also be useful because it at least gives a blurb. r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 06:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done this. This too might be a place to bring in some of these book sources mentioned above by Biruitorul. --John (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.