Talk:2009 Hudson River mid-air collision/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi there! I will be reviewing this article. Please be patient as I look through everything, despite the deletion discussion.--Edge3 (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't meet the quick-fail criteria. I shall continue with the review. Here are my concerns:

Done - These issues have been resolved, please look over the article to make sure it is in good shape. Thanks! Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to review the article, but I won't make my final decision until the deletion discussion ends. --Edge3 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NTSB report should be summarized. Readers don't need to see the whole thing. --Edge3 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Summarized and added a source to additional info about the report. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 19:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Authorities said the Piper's "low wing" design made it difficult to see below the aircraft and the helicopter's rotors make it difficult to see above. In addition, neither small aircraft was required to have a flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder." Cite please. --Edge3 (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 18:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add info on public and government responses to the crash. I know that the NTSB hasn't made any recommendations yet, but at least provide some info on what people think should be done to make the airspace in Manhattan safer. --Edge3 (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be very difficult to do while maintaining NPOV. I removed the "Aftermath" section because it poorly represented the references and had POV issues. I chose to remove it altogether since the "Aftermath" is not going to be known for some time. I will, however, attempt to write a section that has NPOV and fairly summarizes all sides of this issue.Seanfranklin (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - New Aftermath section added. Seanfranklin (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts to preserve NPOV. I understand that this is a very delicate article and will consider that fact when I make my final decision.--Edge3 (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"An investigation is being conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) which sent a Go Team on the day of the crash." What is a Go Team? Provide a link if possible. --Edge3 (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Added link to Investigations subsection on NTSB page, which contains info about what a Go-Team is. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Steven Altman, the pilot, his brother, Daniel, and his nephew, Douglas" and "Michele Norelli, Norelli's son Filippo Norelli, Fabio Gallazzi, Gallazzi's wife, Tiziana Pedroni, and Gallazzi's son, Giacomo Gallazzi": Putting appositives within a series can look very confusing; is there a way to tweak the wording here?--Edge3 (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I have split the two family groups into separate sentences and added appropriate transition words; please tell me if anything more is warranted on these sentences. Thanks! Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 02:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Over the next several days, all of the bodies were found, and on the afternoon of August 11, all the bodies were accounted for after the last two bodies were discovered in the plane's wreckage." This sentence is redundant. If it first says that all of the bodies were found, it doesn't make sense to say that two bodies were found in the second part of the sentence. Maybe you could say: "All of the bodies were accounted for by August 11, when the last two bodies were discovered in the plane's wreckage."--Edge3 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Changed the sentence to "On the afternoon of August 11, two bodies were found, bringing the body total to nine and ending the search for bodies." Thanks! Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 02:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to keep the last two paragraphs of the "Rescue effort and recovery" in chronological order.--Edge3 (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I did this but then realized that the "Rescue effort and recovery" section could be renamed to "Emergency response" and two subsections "Rescue", comprised of the first paragraphs, and "Recovery", comprised of the last paragraphs, could be created. I'd say this addresses the problem. Thanks! Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 15:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of relevant info that you can add from this article. (The controllers unsuccessfully tried to contact the plane, the FAA placed the controller and his supervisor on leave, the NTSB rebuked the FAA for making comments about the controller's actions, etc.) This would add a lot of valuable details to the article.--Edge3 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the article adds anything relevant to the topic. Statements from both the NTSB and NATCA agree that the telephone conversation did not affect the outcome of the flight. Yes, the conversation was improper, but the specifics of it are fodder for slow-news days and tabloids. If the NTSB says that the conversation is not relevant, then it is not relevant. The NTSB initial report shows that the controller handed the Piper off to Newark tower 7 seconds prior to the accident helicopter even appearing on the controller's radar screen. When the helicopter did appear, it was at 400' - the Piper was at 1,100'. Within 30 seconds after instructing the Piper to contact Newark the controller made two separate attempts to contact the Piper again, unsuccessfully. Newark attempted to call him as well with no answer.

I do not have a problem with saying that the controller and supervisor were put on leave, that the NTSB rebuked NATCA (not the FAA) for their comments, and even that NATCA has been removed as a party to the investigation due to their actions. These are all Facts. However delving into the details of the conversation, when the currently released information indicates that the conversation did not affect the outcome, is simply being salacious. Seanfranklin (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the article should discuss the content of the controller's phone conversation; you're putting words in my mouth. I only recommended that the info I put in parenthesis in my previous comment be added. (I'm pretty sure the news article says FAA, but feel free to correct me) The fact that the controller unsuccessfully tried to contact the pilot is important. --Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, the NTSB rebuked both the FAA and NATCA that day. Lots of rebuking going on. I will review that article and see if there is some wheat amongst the chaff that would be useful to the topic. Seanfranklin (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Reviewing over the discussion about this item, I added the essential info from it to the article in a NPOV manner and sourced it. Thanks! Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 16:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Tourist flights out of the West 30th Street Heliport are scheduled to cease on March 31, 2010, and the heliport is scheduled to close on December 31, 2012, as a result of a court agreement between helicopter operators and a group called "Friends of Hudson River Park", who had objected to noise from the heliport." This event isn't a direct result of the crash and should be removed. --Edge3 (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Agreed as unnecessary and removed. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 14:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Collision" section needs to be as comprehensive and detailed as possible. Try this source if you want. --Edge3 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I added the missing information from the source given and I believe that it has all the available info now. Thanks! Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 01:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks ready to pass. Keep up the good work!--Edge3 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! For the part the rescue and recovery, not all of the agencies that responded were included. I added ones as I saw them mentioned in the newspaper articles as I read them. It says nothing about the Hobokem police or FD. I can't imagine they didn't respond. Weehawken is just up the river, they have responded. If they responded, unless they had specialized equipment or dive teams, I suspect that they were just turned back after they arrived on scene. The section is incomplete as far as who did the actual recovery (It is clear from the news stories and pictures that NYPD and NJ state police did the dives, the Coast Guard provide the big boats and the dives were done from NYPD boats, but there may have been other agencies involved), or what roles they did. In addition, there was a safety zone set up around where they thought the wreckage was, but, the article talks about it for only one day. In all likelihood, the safety zone lasted until Aug 14 or 15, though the area was probably modified.Jeffutz (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]