Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pan American World Airways/archive2

Pan American World Airways
Though it might appear to be a short time since this article was taken off the FAC page, but I have decided to renominate it. In the first attempt, the article got only one comment, which I addressed to the best of my abilities, and one support vote. I am hoping that this article will receive more votes and comments on the second try. Pentawing 21:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * First FAC listing
 * Refer to peer review . No matter how the nominator feels the article was treated in its first FAC, it is very inappropriate to re-nominate an article only a day after the previous one failed. Without wanting to sound too angry, this screams of WP:POINT. Accept the decision and work to improve the article further with the help of others. Harro5 00:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * From the first FAC listing, the article was only on the nomination page for six days (it was removed on August 26), with the responses happening only on the first two days the article was listed (and no responses afterwards). I should note that the article has gone through peer review twice, and that I have attempted to address your concerns and was waiting for a reply. I am not trying to prove a point; instead, I am trying to get more feedback given that the article didn't get much on the first try (nor has it been noticed much since). Pentawing 16:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * The nominator has kindly explained to me their reasoning for this swift re-nomination, and I accept that they are right to feel the first FAC received a poor hearing. I have had a good look at the article, and am prepared to support this FA nomination. I am especially impressed that the timeline stuff doesn't just read like a timeline, and that all the photographs are well tagged - even the copyright images have explanations on their description pages as to why they are needed - Carnildo would be ecstatic. Well done Pentawing, and I'm sorry if I seemed brash in my reaction to this second listing. Harro5 04:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. I think this is a well researched, well written article. I always wondered what happened to PanAm, and now I know. One thing that struck me, however, and this is very minor, is that the article perhaps does not quite capture how big and everpresent PanAm was during its heyday, and how such a seeming titan came to basically disappear. This may be due a bit to the style of the writing, but I can't think of any way to improve it.  I really enjoyed the article and give it my full support as a FA. Nrets 00:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems to meet the standards enough after thinking about it. I'll always want more and better references though. There were a few supports and no objects in past FAC noms if I recall. Comments. It looks pretty good and I can see supporting with some improvements :). Specific remarks: 1) Six references is a bit light, do you have access to any other general aviation books that speak to Pan Am's importance in aviation or perhaps shed light on any more negative aspects? Not that there needs to be mention of anything unimportant, but 5 of the 6 sources are focused on Pan Am which could result in favoritism. Also the three external links listed as references need to be formatted as at Cite sources. And the citation is pretty good, but I'd always like to see more, particularly for any of the most important points in the article. 2) The focus is pretty tilted. Is the historical company really 5 times as important as the recent incarnations? You've given it 5 times as much coverage, and well over half the article. It seems like it's possible that's justified but also possible the recent incarnations should be covered a bit more. You'd know, so just as long as you can justify it. 3) The lead is short, especially the second paragraph, and should be expanded a bit. It summarizes the article reasonably well, so maybe pick out a few of the most important points from the article that aren't in the lead already and cover them. Three full paragraphs wouldn't be too much, but it's up to you. Two full ones is fine too. 4) There are a number of one and two sentence paragraphs which hurt the flow and show areas that should either be expanded or merged with related material. 5) There is still some airline jargon and things that could be made more clear, like parastatal that I fixed. If you want me to point them out I can, but just look to add contextual definitions or explanation of most things the average reader wouldn't know. 6) Last, the history section makes reference to things that I can never see if they are later explained. For ex in the clipper era, "Pan Am also procured an airmail contract from Boston to Halifax, preparing for North Atlantic flights in the future." Were there ever such flights? That's all for now. :) - Taxman Talk 02:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I went through the article once more:
 * 1. I found some more relevent sources and listed them. Though I only glanced through them, they did talk about Pan Am in some way.
 * Well that's not really what I meant. To be listed as sources they have to have been actually used to add or fact check material in the article. Listing them without that isn't a good idea. Does the coverage those sources have agree factually and in POV with the article? - Taxman Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. Unfortunately, this cannot be helped. The reason is that much has occurred with the original airline than with the latter incarnations, and that the original airline was more of a pioneering airline. When I looked at the latter incarnations of Pan Am, there isn't much worth mentioning about since the history of those two entities is similar to the history of other modern airline startups, though in this case these startups used the Pan Am name (one example I could easily think of whose history is similar is the recent incarnation of National Airlines, which folded a few years ago).
 * That is what I was getting at. If it really is just that much more important then the extra focus in the article is appropriate. I was just asking you to explicitly confirm that, since often articles have details out of proportion to importance. - Taxman Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3. I tried to expand the lead to two full paragraphs.
 * Looks good. - Taxman Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4. Went through and fixed them.
 * Also looks good. - Taxman Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5. I am trying to address this, though I would appreciate your pointing out exactly which sections have the problem.
 * Well after fixing just a few it looks good, so I see now I assumed there were more than there were, sorry. I can't find any obvious ones now. - Taxman Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6. I believed that I have addressed this issue, but I need a second look. Thanks.
 * Pentawing 21:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's probably fine. Good fixes, which hopefully weren't terribly difficult, but I do think the article is better now. The only remaining problem is the references. If you can spend a little more time with those two new ones to fact check and/or correct or adjust anything needed based on them that would be a lot better. Oh, and the accidents section seems a little mis-titled. Terrorist acts are done on purpose to an extent, so is there a more inclusive way of covering that? I won't be too much a stickler on this one since I can't think of anything better myself, besides 'accidents and terrorism'. Paragraphs in that section could probably still also use a bit of expansion. - Taxman Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I addressed the issues concerning the accident section. In the meantime, I am looking over the new sources and would be finished soon. Pentawing 21:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I checked the new sources, and was able to confirm information that is currently in the article. Pentawing 23:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * There were seriously no corrections or new important facts from those sources, and nothing worth citing. I don't see how that is possible. - Taxman Talk 23:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is this data accurate in the article? Do you have some reference to support it? Where did it come from?
 * The airline also participated in several notable humanitarian flights. Pan Am operated 650 flights a week between West Germany and West Berlin, first with the DC-6B and, in 1966, with the Boeing 727
 * 650 flights a week, that is about 93 flights a day, almost 4 flights an hour. That in 1966... Just checking if the data is accurate. Thanks. nacul19:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The information is indeed correct. I placed a footnote pointing to where the information had come from. Pentawing 23:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Mild concern at the faulty prose. A quick look revealed two clumsy instances of the possessive apostrophe at the opening, and numerous instances of 'aircrafts', which is incorrent. It's not too bad, but not yet "brilliant'', as Wikipedia requires. Tony 16:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I did some more copyediting. Is there any other problems? Pentawing 22:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've gone through it up to 1962; please go through the rest and ensure that there's one space consistently after the stops; remove 'in order' to; check commas—some required for precision of meaning, a few are excess. Then my opinion will be neutral. Tony 01:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Went through the rest of the article - I believe that I have corrected the problems, but I need a second look. Pentawing 03:01, September 10, 2005 (UTC)