Talk:All American (aircraft)

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Notability

Not necessarily the has-it-been-written-about-in-reliable-sources, but the why has it been notable.

After all many aircraft came back from missions with bits hanging off. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Here, the coverage has been substantial and widespread, even 70 years later. To launch the article, I chose a limited number of reliable sources because in the body of lore on this subject, many false myths have wrongly embellished the facts—widely written false embellishments that reliable sources debunk in the "Mythology" section of the article (another reason to have this article). Further, as sourced content already states, the incident provided one of the most famous photographs of World War II. Aside: having the entire tail section almost severed from the aircraft isn't just "coming back from a mission with bits hanging off." —RCraig09 (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, not the coverage in sources to meet GNG but the reason. If the reason is the photograph, then that needs to be in the lede. First sentence in fact. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I gotcha. I still think the type of damage itself is the main reason for notability, though per your suggestion I've added some derivative reasons for notability to the lead. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-pilot's name (disputed across references)

(copied from my talk page —RCraig09 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)) Hey, I noticed that you reverted my edit on All American (aircraft). There seems to be a conflict between different sources on whether the name is "Boyd" or "Engel." I'm inclined to believe this one because its source for the name is more than just a guess at bad handwriting. Additionally, this source addresses the misidentification of the co-pilot as "Boyd." LeBron4 (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LeBron4: I took the safe route, and reported both sides by saying the co-pilot's name is "disputed". I hope this is agreeable. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @LeBron4: A 2016 version of the Disciples of Flight reference doesn't have the disputes that are in the 2020 version that I archived in the citation. The source evolved over those four years and I'm not sure how that affects reliability in this field which doesn't have heavyweight newspapers doing the research. So, I think it's safest to keep both sides of the story in our Wikipedia article. I'm copying this discussion to Talk:All American (aircraft) —RCraig09 (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]