Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pan Am Flight 7/archive1

Pan Am Flight 7

 * Nominator(s): RecycledPixels (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 7 is about an airline flight from San Francisco to Honolulu that never reached its destination. The article describes the flight, important details about the aircraft, the enormous search and rescue operation that was carried out when contact was lost with the aircraft, and details of the investigation that was carried out using a few pieces of recovered wreckage and the remains of a few of the victims. To this day, the cause of the crash has never been determined. Although there have been various theories, this incident remains an unsolved mystery.

After its initial expansion and rewrite, the article appeared on the WP front page's Did You Know? section. It later received a GA review by and was promoted, and after a couple years of rest, recently finished a Peer review where  and  jumped in and made some helpful suggestions for improvement. And course, there have been dozens of other editors who have made improvements and suggestions in the past couple of years. At this point, I feel it's ready to appear on the main page in the Featured Article slot. Do you? RecycledPixels (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Image and source pass
Images have appropriate purpose, caption, alt, and licenses. Sources are all reliable and I have archived them, except for Google Books as it's naturally unarchivable. I will be posting comments soon, though it will definitely be short since most of my concerns have been addressed at the PR.  Gerald WL  07:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This would be RecycledPixels' first FA so a source check will be needed as well, assuming that the nomination gets supports. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have checked all the sources during the PR, they all support the claims of the article and has nothing wrong. If that's what you mean by source check.  Gerald WL  10:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by Heartfox

 * Why aren't the Newspapers.com links clippings so everyone can view them instead of just those with a subscription? I'm also confused by the date formatting. The prose uses month-first but the references are day-first. The article was first written using month-first and the first reference used month first so as a reader this inconsistency is a bit odd, especially the refs are not using year-month-day. Heartfox (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Date format changed to be consistent m-d-y.  Gerald WL  01:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My initial response to the newspapers.com clipping issue was, first, that it wasn't possible to do that for articles spanning multiple pages, and second, that the publisher preferred that I link directly to their page since I've obtained my Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library. However, in searching for some answers, I found some enlightenment on the WP:Newspapers.com page that showed that I was wrong on both parts, so I'll put some time into converting those reference URL links into clippings that can be accessed by anyone.   RecycledPixels (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I created a newspapers.com clip for the first reference in the list just as a test, and it doesn't look like it is worth the effort involved.  The clip is here so you can see what I mean.   The article, which is nearly a full page, when you view the clip, is so tiny that it is impossible to read.  The only way I see to increase the size is to click on the article image, which takes me to my newspapers.com account so I can zoom in, which is the same exact page I had originally linked.   If I go in private browsing mode, when I click on the image, I'm prompted to sign up for a Newspapers.com account if I want to zoom in.   So I don't think the clippings feature is an improvement, and will hold off converting more unless there is a compelling argument that doing so is an improvement.   RecycledPixels (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an issue for articles spanning multiple columns, but it's not an issue for articles that are one or a few columns wide—which is most articles. Also, for multiple pages, you can do references like this:  --Usernameunique (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by SandyGeorgia

 * "At the time of Flight 7, he had accumulated 11,314 hours of flight experience ... " makes no sense; Flight 7 was a regularly scheduled flight (it operated more than once). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think you might've misunderstood the sentence. What it means is, as of the date of Pan Am 7, the pilot had flown for 11,314 hours in total.  Gerald WL  03:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Convert? "The flight plan called for a cruising altitude of 10,000 feet ... " Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.

Comments from Mike Christie
Support. The article is well-written and concise. I have a couple of suggestions that don't affect my support. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's an article in the San Francisco Examiner for November 10 that gives some human interest background on the passengers; I had a look through it to see if there was anything worth including. I think it might be worth mentioning that two entire families were killed in the crash.
 * I've used that article as a reference in a couple of the crew members, so there is a link to it in the references from the article. There is a longstanding convention in the Aviation WikiProject to not name any of the occupants of the aircraft except the flight crew or people who are notable enough to have their own WP article. RecycledPixels (talk)
 * The evidence of carbon monoxide poisoning seems definite enough to mention in the lead, and I think the information about William Payne's insurance could also be mentioned in the lead.
 * It's one of several theories, none of which could definitely be pointed out as the primary cause of the accident. None of them are mentioned in the lead, because they're all reasonable guesses but with no conclusive evidence as to which one is true.  The talk page of the article includes a similar discussion I had with someone else about a month or so ago. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK on both points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

 * in case you didn't see my response. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry there, the watchlist got piled with other stuff that I didn't see this. It looks all good for me now, so I'm supporting this FAC.  Gerald WL  01:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from TRM
That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "a massive search" seems a little POV/tone problem.
 * Changed "massive" to "extensive".
 * Honolulu is linked twice in the lead but to different targets, I would suggest expanding the airport link(s) to avoid confusion.
 * The link to the airport was an edit suggested by Gerald Waldo Luis in this FAC. I prefer the visible wording of Honolulu and San Francisco but he suggested linking it to the airport instead of the city.  I didn't see a problem with that, but I don't want the long names of the airports to appear in the first sentence of the article, because it's just clutter to me and a bit over-precise.  When I get on a plane to fly to Honolulu, I don't say I'm going to the Honolulu Airport, I say I'm going to Honolulu.  So not sure how to address this suggestion.
 * My only guide is to not have two different articles piped to the same visible text. It's not fair on our readers.  By all means reword it accordingly, even just adding "airport" or something. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed it to the names of the airports involved. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Infobox, not seeing in ref 1 the exact geolocation of the crash mentioned?
 * The wrong source is cited. The final CAB report gives a probable point of impact on page 5, and that is probably where ASN got the coordinates, that don't appear in the current version of the page.  I have updated the citation for those coordinates.
 * That ref also says 937 miles/1500 km which is a bit more than the values mentioned in the lead.
 * That's wrong, see next comment.
 * Isn't the crash site "approximate"? I assume that since it took several days, the wreckage/bodies etc could have moved by dozens of miles?
 * So there are actually two data points here that have problems in the article.  The first is where the Philippine Sea found the bodies and the wreckage, which the Oakland Tribune article cited in the body describes as "about 900 miles northeast of Honolulu" and the CAB report on page 2 describes as "some 940 miles east of Honolulu and 90 miles north of the flight's intended track".  Later in the CAB report (page 5) we find that the wreckage was found at 29° 36'N, 144° 3'W. (29.60, -144.05 in decimal notation).   Diving into OR-land, I used an online distance calculator, and using 21.332689, -157.919769 as the coordinates of the Honolulu Airport, I end up with a distance of 899 nautical miles (1034 miles, 1664 km).   The CAB report (also page 5) further gives a probable location of the actual point of impact of 29° 26'N, 143° 34' W (29.434, -143.567), based on known ocean current vectors and reported winds.  That's 916 nm from Honolulu airport, (1054 mi, 1696 km).  What I don't know is whether the distances "from Honolulu" describe the distance from the Honolulu Airport, the geographic center of the city, the edge of the city, or some other location near Honolulu.  None of the sources specify, so "about 900 miles" is about as close as I'm comfortable specifying.  But looking into these questions has identified that the CAB report is reporting in nautical miles, so my conversions were all wrong, so I'm updating the article accordingly.  I don't think the difference between "about 900 nautical miles" and "916 nautical miles from Honolulu Airport" is significant enough to affect the understanding of the article, and the more precise figures should raise WP:OR concerns.  RecycledPixels (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The "10–29" suffix to the aircraft type is only in the infobox, I suggest it's in the prose too.
 * Could link flight plan.
 * "10,000 feet (3.0 km) " I know Sandy asked for conversion (and I know we know that flight altitudes are always given in feet) but I suggest the conversion be made to metres rather than km.
 * Lol...I didn't see that!
 * "aircraft from Honolulu conducted" could link actual Honolulu here as the first time after the lead.
 * "was just malfunctioning" no need for "just".
 * "anti-submarine planes" is there a link?
 * Not that I could find. I figured if there is one, it would be in the Lockheed P-3 Orion article, and I don't see anything like that other than generic Anti-submarine warfare.
 * "ordered USS John R. Craig and" this is piped to a redirect back to itself?
 * Almost, except there is markup in it to italicize the name of the ship (but not USS) that would break the hyperlink. I kept the pipe but moved the link from the redirect to the actual article.
 * "the most promising sign" again, POV/tone issues here, promising to whom?
 * Both 500 kHz and International distress frequency have articles, worth linking for me.
 * What's a "dye marker"?
 * Linked to distress signal. It's a packet of brightly-colored dye that's put in the water that can be seen by aircraft for a short period of time (like 30 minutes).
 * What are "merchant ships"?
 * Linked.
 * "about 900 miles (1,400 km) northeast" see earlier comment.
 * " a Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" see above, should you add the 10-29 suffix here?
 * Normally, I wouldn't, but since this section is a fairly technical discussion of the aircraft I added it.
 * "Pan Am Flight 6, whose aircraft..." that caption is a fragment so no full stop.
 * "was the second worst accident involving the Stratocruiser" ever or at the time?
 * Both.
 * Might link "centrifugal force".
 * Probably should link "feathering" to something like Propeller (aeronautics).
 * "The flight carried 36 passengers..." reinforce "Flight 7..." here as the previous para was about a totally different flight.
 * "Thirty two of " don't we normally "Thirty-two" that?
 * "The flight carried 36 passengers and 8 crew members on the flight to Honolulu.[6]: 1  Upon arrival, 20 of the passengers were scheduled to disembark, while 16 would have continued onward at least as far as Tokyo. At Honolulu, 17 passengers were waiting to board the plane for the next segment of the flight.[5] Thirty two of the passengers were from the United States, one was from Australia, one was from Japan, one was from Turkey, and one was from Indonesia.[26][27]" does the maths work here for these passenger numbers?
 * Yes. When the plane crashed on the way from San Francisco to Honolulu, there were 36 passengers.  20 of them would have left the flight while 16 of them would have remained on for the next leg.  20 + 16 = still 36.   After the 20 passengers left the flight, a different 17 passengers would have gotten on for the next leg, in addition to the ones who stayed on the plane.  But they never did because the plane never arrived.   Of the 36 passengers who crashed, 32 were from US, 1 from Australia, 1 from Japan, 1 from Turkey, 1 from Indonesia.  Still 36.  I changed the order of the sentences around to hopefully make it less confusing.
 * "first officer" link?
 * "since 1951 since" ugh, repetitive.
 * Is there a link for Flight engineer?
 * "flown to the carrier to begin" what carrier?
 * Philippine Sea, identified in the previous sentence. Linked earlier in the article.
 * "overhaul station" what's that?
 * I'm guessing it's a maintenance facility for engine overhauls and other time-consuming repairs performed on aircraft, separate from where quick repairs and inspections would be performed. The CAB report uses the term "The Pan American overhaul base at San Francisco" while the San Francisco Examiner reference only called it "a warehouse at San Francisco International Airport".
 * "embedded in a floating pillow" picky, but with all this technical talk, one might be convinced that a "floating pillow" was part of the aircraft, rather than an actual pillow which was floating on the surface of the water...
 * I personally assumed it was more like a seat cushion that was designed to act as a floatation device as in modern aircraft, but "floating pillow" was as descriptive as the report got.  A different article mentioned that seat cushions were recovered.  I Reworded it.
 * "one and a quarter pounds (1 kg) of" 1.25 lb -> around about 560g, not 1 kg.
 * "debris came up negative" - "came up" is a little colloquial.
 * "knocked unconscious or stunned by " is "stunned" a medical condition?
 * The source doesn't get any more specific than being knocked unconscious or stunned by the crash. I assume "stunned" includes, for example, a traumatic brain injury that does not result in unconsciousness.   Such an injury can leave the victim dazed and confused and unable to care for themselves.  Another might be a spinal cord injury, but those are just guesses on my part.   But basically I interpret it that the investigators were saying that the victims weren't necessarily unconscious when they drowned.
 * "In 1949, Albert Guay had" maybe "Six years earlier", or pop these into chronological order?
 * "a total of $230,000[b] in" put the inflation in the article, not a footnote (like the conversions).
 * A different FAC reviewer suggested that putting them in footnotes would make the article less cluttered.
 * "n 1958, a year after the crash of Flight 7, ..." why not "A year after the crash..."?
 * "Helena, Montana had" comma after Montana.
 * Inflate the following monetary values too.
 * "from Scott Bar, California named" comma after Cali.
 * "filed a $300,000[d] damage" see above.
 * I've addressed or commented on all off the items here. Thank you for the time looking at the article and for your feedback.  If you see anything else or find something else I've missed, let me know.  RecycledPixels (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man Thanks so much for reviewing this article. Do you feel your comments were adequately addressed? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, and yes, I'm content that my concerns have been addressed. Cheers, happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Harry
I know nothing of this particular incident, but I've watched a lot of Air Crash Investigation! Little to criticise really. A tidy article that does a good job of presenting the facts available. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some details that add words without improving the reader's understanding here: Admiral Felix Stump, commander-in-chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, ordered USS Philippine Sea to join the search from the port of Long Beach, California, with its helicopters and radar-equipped anti-submarine planes.[6] A few hours later, the United States Navy also ordered USS John R. Craig and USS Orleck to depart from San Diego to assist the search. You could lose almost all the names and places except the ships. Eg, "USS Philippine Sea joined the search from Long Beach, California, with its helicopters and radar-equipped anti-submarine planes. It was joined a few hours later by USS John R. Craig and USS Orleck to depart from San Diego". That reduces your word count by a third but doesn't remove any important detail.
 *  On June 18, 1957, it had suffered a runaway propeller as it departed San Francisco. The crew was unable to feather the propeller and performed an emergency landing back at San Francisco some redundancy/repetition that could be eliminated with careful copy editing.
 * to determine if any of the passengers if → whether
 * For what it's worth, I respectfully disagree with TRM and think the inflation sums work well in footnotes to avoid cluttering the prose.
 * Thank you for the suggestions. I have made the changes you suggested.  Let me know if you see anything else.  RecycledPixels (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One more query: should the ships have a definite article, eg the USS Philippine Sea? I don't know the answer to this and it doesn't affect my support. Just something to ponder. Support. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The US Navy Style Guide says to not use "the" in front of a ship's name: "USS San Jose", not "the USS San Jose". I'm pretty sure this came up recently on one of the articles I had submitted for review, I just can't find it at the moment.  RecycledPixels (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, here's what I was looking for... Naming conventions (ships). RecycledPixels (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)