Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USAir Flight 405/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 17:53, 7 August 2010.

USAir Flight 405

 * Nominator(s):  Wacky Wace  you talkin' to me? 15:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I am self-nominating this article because over the past several months I have worked to expand the article from a stub to what is now a GA. The crash itself, in my opinion, was one of the most influential in aviation safety today, as it highlighted the need for improved deicing procedures for aircraft, which are detailed in the article. Ice is a major issue in aviation, and I feel that this article not only states the facts of the crash and the aviation in detail, but also describes how deicing technology has advanced, and aviation is safer today for it. It is for these reasons that, unlike many other air crash articles, I feel it is a necessary and intriguing read for those interested in aviation, and those not familiar with the subject at all.  Wacky Wace  you talkin' to me? 15:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.schmidt-automotive.com/holding/english/products/airport/airside/ice/sprayers/sprayers-nozzle.php appears to be broken (the title given does not match the page). Ucucha 16:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the link, and will try and find a different one that explains the same thing.  Wacky Wace  you talkin' to me? 16:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources review - some issues with sourcing, detailed below. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All web sources should have access dates
 * Done


 * Link or spell out NTSB on first appearance, as the first reference using that abbreviation appears before it is linked in article text
 * Done


 * Ref 1: site update date?
 * Done


 * What makes Plane Crash Info a reliable source? Also, include author
 * I've removed this reference because I don't think it provided any useful information other than confirming the crash happened.


 * Why does ref 3 in "By"?
 * How do you mean? You mean who is the author? There is no record on the page as to who wrote it.
 * Looking back to this revision, ref 3 began with "By...". No other ref included that, so that was inconsistent; it has since been removed, so on that point all is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Date formatting should be consistent
 * Done


 * Author name should consistently have either first name or last name first
 * Done


 * Ref 4: spell out publisher name
 * Done


 * Newspaper names are generally italicized
 * Done


 * Identical refs should be combined - for example refs 22 and 23
 * I think I've done this. If anyone spots any more identical references please don't hesitate to say.
 * There are two references with the content " ", and also two different references named "p10". Ucucha 20:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done


 * Ref 25: authors?
 * Done


 * Ref 28: author?
 * Done


 * Be consistent in using newspaper name or website as publisher for newspaper articles
 * Done


 * Ref 33: no need to include "Crash at La Guardia" twice
 * Done


 * What makes Pilotfriend.com a reliable source?
 * Removed that reference because it did not add anything to the article.


 * Ref 46: need more information. This refers to an episode of the TV show? Include network, air date, link to show page (?), etc
 * Done


 * Ref 57: bare URLs are not acceptable references for FA - need more information
 * Done


 * Ref 63 needs more information - author, publication name, etc
 * Done


 * What makes b737.org.uk a reliable source?
 * All the information on the site is in a printed book, so I've cited the book as the source instead.


 * Ref 65: date?
 * Done


 * Ref 66: author?
 * Done


 * Ref 68: why is all of the information part of the external link?
 * Done


 * Done  Wacky Wace  you talkin' to me? 08:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

media The resolution of File:Attemptedtakeoff405f281992.jpg is too low Fasach Nua (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is printscreened from the NTSB report, which is particularly badly done with several pages upside down. I don't believe there's any higher quality image that shows the same thing, and I think that it definatley adds to the article. I'm not a graphics design wizard and I don't have any professional tools, so if anyone wants to have a go at sharpening it up, please do so.  Wacky Wace  you talkin' to me? 08:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To be comparable quality to the original would be acceptable Fasach Nua (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the file is the same quality as the image on the PDF, because to fit it in the PDF has to be zoomed out to show the whole page, which reduces the image quality.  Wacky Wace  you talkin' to me? 10:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a higher quality copy of the original to File:Attemptedtakeoff405f281992.png, please feel free to use it Fasach Nua (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for uploading that.  Wacky Wace  you talkin' to me? 10:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * The big one: You need to check all the page numbers on the NTSB source. A spot check of several citations (39,20, etc.) revealed that the page number you list is the PDF page number, not the document page number. (e.g., in source 39, you list p.83, which the information is on p. 75 of the document).
 * You mean have the document page number in the reference title, but keep the URL the same so that it links to the correct page?
 * Hmm, I didn't even realize you were trying to pipe the link directly to a page. I have opened the reference on IE7/WinXp/Adobe Pro and in Firefox/Win7/Foxit, and neither way piped me directly to the page you listed. But ya, I was referring to the page in the actual citation. That report was originally a printed document, and the PDF is just a scanned copy of the paper report. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done for all NTSB report references.


 * What makes a domestic passenger flight "routine"? What would a non-routine passenger flight be?
 * Changed to 'regularly scheduled'.


 * I find much of the citation in the lead to be distracting. It seems most of that content is repeated later in the body and it doens't seem to be controversial (e.g., where it crashed). I think that moving some of those citations to the body would greatly improve readability. See WP:LEADCITE.
 * Reduced from six references to two.


 * I know you wikilink NTSB in the lead per an earlier comment, but I think it would be helpful to spell it out that first time.
 * Done


 * What does "ILS" add to the sentence about the landing (first paragraph of "Accident" section)? I'm an aviation guy, so I know ILS means, but it doesn't mean much to most people.
 * Changed to "instrument approach".


 * I suggest using "body" or "fuselage" instead of "the jet" in this sentence "The left wing then separated from the fuselage, before the jet impacted with the edge ...". If the wing has already broken off, it makes more sense to talk about parts rather than "the jet".
 * Changed to "fuselage".


 * At the end of the build-up of ice section (near cite 39), please include the ice particle density. Just saying 1-2mm ice crystals can cause 20%+ loss in lift is disegenous.
 * I've changed the sentence to "they found that ice particles as small as 1-2mm can cause a loss of lift of over 20%", but I'm not sure what you mean - I am unaware of what the ice particle density was in the tests.
 * The cited source includes that information, IIRC.-SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So it does. Done.


 * When you start a quote in the middle of a sentence, please preceed the first word with "...", as in "... cry for me Argentina." This indicated that text was omitted from the quote.
 * I think I've done this in all the locations in which it is required. If there are any more sentences that need this change, please tell me and I will change them.
 * There are still several quote blocks that start with a lower case letter. Either they are the start of the sentence and need to be capitalized, or they should have the ellipsis. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * Actually, if they are the start of a sentence they don't necessarily need to be capitalized. Per WP:QUOTE, if a quote forms "a grammatical part of a larger sentence", the capitalization is dropped (not sure if/where that applies here, just pointing it out). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So, what should I do? Currently, when a quote starts in the middle of a sentence, the article goes "... abc", and if it starts at the beggining of the sentence, it goes "Abc". Should I leave it like this or do something different?
 * "middle of the sentence" in the article or the source? That determines the appropriate response. For example, if your source says "All cats are small.", your article text might say "Source X says that "all cats are small", which contradicts Y." If, however, your source said "He proposes that we believe that all cats are small," -> article text: "Source X says that "...all cats are small". Source: "All cats are small" -> article text: ""All cats are small," argues Source X". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The "NTSB Reccomendations" section needs work. It seems like you couldn't make up your mind between using a list or prose and ended up somewhere in the middle. A list of reccomendations would be appropriate here if you'd like, or, if you prefer just a sample, summarize them instead of just quoting them. Unless it's a list you shouldn't have a different paragraph for each sentence.
 * Done.
 * The list looks better to me, but it's odd to see a list with just quotes (which seem awkwardly phrased, out of context). Have you thought about converting the quotes to cited prose? -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done some work on it and hope it looks better now.
 * Looks much better to me now. That said, the section seems pretty short. I know you don't want to reprint the entire section from the NTSB report, but did they have another other major reccomendations? -SidewinderX (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Expanded.


 * In the Dryden report section, you mention that the FAA refuted the allegations... are there any more details to that? Any other sources for the allegations/complaints? Or was it just the documentary?
 * Upon multiple searches, I am unable to find any other reference to the FAA refuting the Moshansky's allegations. Air Crash Investigation is arguably one of the most reliable sources when researching aviation accidents. I assume the producers of the program must have contacted the FAA for a response to the allegations. I've added the "d".
 * I didn't mean to imply the TV program was unreliable! I'm just curious about the context/aftermath of the incident. If there's nothing else out there, then there's nothing else out there. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How did a 1992 deicing conference follow a 1994 accident?
 * Fixed.
 * Should "flight 405" be capitalized? -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done there and throughout the article.


 * The deicing conference section is dominated by that quote. Is the entire quote needed? Could it have been sumarized in the prose?
 * Shortened the quote.


 * The article mentioned Type I, Type II, and Type IV deicing fluid... was there ever a Type III?
 * As far as I am aware it was designed for use on small commuter aircraft. There's hardly any information on it on the web, and upon searching for Type III deicing fluid, Google asks "did you mean Type II deicing fluid?", so I would say there is not a good deal written on it.
 * Ok, fair enough, just curious. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the USAir section needed? You admit in the first line the change was connected with the accident. At the least, information about new aircraft orders in unneeded.
 * The exact same issue was raised in the peer review. I noted that there was no direct link between the rebranding effor, but stated that "I put that section there thinking it would swiftly be removed for being trivial, but I thought to the average reader it rounded off and concluded the article, if you know what I mean." However, I am, if you feel it is completely unnecessary, happy to remove the section from the article.
 * Well, let's see if we can get a third opinion on it. I don't like it, but that along won't keep me from supporting the FAC. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion before you strike it. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you've added an anecdotal story about the frequent flyer letter. I'm not sure if it belongs in that section, or in the article.
 * Also, the more I look at that section, the less I like the information about the new aircraft orders... it's just really out of place to me. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just read through the article from start to finish and I'm inclined to agree&mdash;it just doesn't fit in. As a result of this and your thoughts, I have taken the decision to remove the entire section.  WackyWace  converse 16:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of good information here! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment
 * The phrase flight crew in the Crash section prompted me to check the sources and assuming the report isn't copyrighted so this isn't WP:Plagarism, it seemed to me like your summary of the crash uses close paraphrasing when quotes or copy/paste were appropriate
 * Report: The first officer said that they seemed to agree that the airplane was not going to fly and that their control inputs were in unison vs.
 * Article: The first officer said that the flight crew seemed to agree the jet was not going to fly.
 * Other times the close paraphrasing changes the meaning - The first officer stated that he did not touch the power levers. vs. The flight crew did not alter the power levers.
 * I read the standards and I think you probably should use just quote the report in this instance instead of paraphrasing but you it actually might be more appropriate to just copy the text from the report since in many cases that's the simplest way to say what happened. Hopefully other editors will give their opinion. Kirk (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean - the only realistic and verifiable way to explain adequatley what exactly went on is to use the NTSB report - which by US law is in the public domain - as they had access to the 'black boxes', and pesumably interviewed many witnesses, expert witnesses and passengers onboard the flight, something which Wikipedia does not have the luxury of doing. The thing is, I don't just want the whole accident section to be made up of quotes (or be copied without quote marks) from the accident report, since it looks lazy.  WackyWace  converse 07:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now been through the article and have done what you suggested above.  WackyWace  converse 11:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks although I had hoped someone else would have commented on my comment. There's a couple of spots in the paragraph where the text is then duplicated by a quote, but it looks better now.  Kirk (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed one of the two times the small fires are mentioned&mdash;I assume that's what you mean about some text being duplicated in a quote.  WackyWace  converse 16:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: I will be going away for two weeks on August 13. If this isn't wrapped up by then, I will ask around for someone to take it over while I'm gone.  WackyWace  converse 19:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.