Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base
Respectfully submit this article about a military aircraft accident for A class assessment review. Thank you in advance for your review and comments. Cla68 08:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a very impressive and well-written article, but I think that it needs a bit more work to make it clearer why the accident was and remains significant. At the moment the article describes the lead-up to the accident and the accident in great detail but needs a stronger conclusion or an assessment section which explicitly draws the findings of the crash investigations together to make it clear how a culture of not taking safety seriously lead to the crash and hence why it is used in training. Explaining how it is used in training could also be a good addition (eg, is it a standard case-study USAF students study?). --Nick Dowling 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very valid critique and I'll work on what you suggest right away. I'd ask that the nomination for "A-class" be put "on hold" until I fix that.  I'll note it here when I believe that I've fully addressed the problem you've pointed-out. Cla68 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I hope I've now resolved the concern. I added a "Conclusions" section to summarize the findings of the investigation and show how the investigation tied the findings to the mishap.  I added more details to the "Aftermath" section.  The sources available for the article don't go into very great detail about how the mishap is used as a training aid, just that it is.  I have some personal experience with this mishap as a training tool which may account for some of my interest in this event, but, of course, I'm not a valid secondary source for the article. Cla68 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be a pain in the neck, and I really do think that this is a very high quality article on a very interesting topic, but I'd make a couple more suggestions for you to consider:
 * The article could do with a final copy edit as some of the prose is a bit wordy and the grammar is a bit choppy in points (for instance, "All of the mishap aircrewmembers had experienced limited flying time in the months preceeding the mishap flight" - can you just say "all of the aircrew involved in the accident had only limited flying time in the months before the crash"?)
 * It might be a good idea to rework the first couple of paras so that the significance of the crash is explained in the first couple of sentances. At face value, the loss of a single B-52 in an accident caused by pilot error isn't terribly interesting and the introduction isn't doing the article justice at present. --Nick Dowling 10:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I appreciate you taking the time to point out how the article could be improved.  I'm a fan of run-on, Faulkner-esque sentences and that gets in the way of my writing sometimes.  I just completed the copyedit, rewrote the intro, shortened some sentences, and removed some commas. Cla68 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Image:HollandB-52Yakima.jpg has an extremely unlikely rationale as being US-PD. Additionally the Youtube video linked has been removed from Youtube (likely as a copyvio). The introductory sentence/paragraph is a little weak "was an aircraft mishap" - better perhaps to describe it as "...was fatal aircrash that occured on June 24, 1994 killing the four aircrew of a B-52 Bomber during a training flight. ". Just a thought. Could maybe do with a diagram/map showing the flightpath. Otherwise looks good. Megapixie 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the image rationale is a problem. When I originally saw the footage that that image comes from on a news show, they stated that it was videotaped by US Government personnel, but I don't have any proof of that.  I'll change the intro sentence as you suggest.  I'll also delete the You Tube link.  The CheckSix link also has the video. Cla68 06:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I like your article and especially the citation style, but I know too little on the subject to say whether it is fit for A class. Wandalstouring 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If, after reading the article you feel that you don't know enough about the subject, then I didn't do a good-enough job on it and I need to relook it. Cla68 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support all the (relatively minor) points I raised have now been taken into account. --Nick Dowling 10:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. Megapixie 10:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.