Talk:American Airlines Flight 191/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Status:  In progress -- DQ (t) (e) 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

To Work On list (specifics)

Use the templates in the show box below to comment on how the tasks are going.

Templates to use

{{Fixed}} —  Fixed {{Added}} —  Added {{Not done}} —  Not done {{Not sure}} — Not sure {{Doing}} —  Doing... {{Isdoing}} —  Example is doing... {{Tick}}, produces the tick alone — Y {{Cross}}, produces the cross alone — N {{Done-t}}, a non-graphical alternative to {{Done}} —  Done {{Not done-t}}, a non-graphical alternative to {{Not done}} — ✗ Not done {{Thank you}} — Thank you {{Resolved}}, tick with additional message — Resolved

• Disambiguation & redirect issues. See "Dablinks" in the top right of this page. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done fixed N419BH 05:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• "uncommanded"? Maybe use another word? (See Investigation)
• "reached a bank angle of 112 degrees (partially inverted)" I know that this means, but is the reader if not a math person?
• "Sales of the airplane would never recover." only mentioned in the lead/not sourced
• Unsouced weather statement in Accident
• "Everything appeared normal until just after VR (rotation speed), when the number one engine and the pylon assembly that attached it to the wing separated from the aircraft, ripping away a 3 foot (0.91 m) section of the leading edge of the left wing in the process" Run-on sentence/confusing.

Comments

• It says "a three foot section", "159 knots, six knots higher", "124 knots to 159 knots". These need metric equivalents.
• It says "footage". The word 'film' would be more plain English.

Lightmouse (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Aviation worldwide uses Knots, so I'm not sure if a metric equivalent is appropriate in that specific case. Feet will be converted. N419BH 17:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done conversions applied as they were already partially implemented, footage->film. N419BH 19:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this review? It's been a few weeks since last comment, the review should be fully written out by now so concerns can be addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I pinged DQ last week, he said he'd get to it. He just got the admin bit so he's likely busy with that. I'll give him another poke on his talk page. N419BH 23:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, totally spaced on this, working on it now. I've stopped my listing of individual details that need to be fixed because I see that the article is mostly sourced by one source, and there is no second account of the incidents, is the info not available, or not sourced in, or conflicting? -- DQ (t) (e) 18:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

With aviation accidents the final accident report is usually utilized as the primary source, with news coverage providing for secondary sourcing. The technical aspects of the accident, as well as the accident sequence, are most authoritatively sourced by the final report. See United Airlines Flight 232 another GA of mine with a very similar sourcing structure, though that article benefits from the first hand accounts of the surviving crew. I will begin working on the specific bullets listed here. N419BH 02:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been almost two weeks since the last comment. Are we any closer to a decision? WP:There is no deadline, but you're at the top of the list at WP:GAN/R#Old_reviews. If you need help, feel free to ask for it at WT:WikiProject Good articles. If it's a case of real life conspiring against you, then these things happen—there really is no deadline—but no one wants to see the review just forgotten. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• N419BH, i'm sorry I have really failed in getting this done for you. At this time I would recommend another reviewer taking this on because I won't have time this week as I have exams and some personal things to deal with. Again, sorry about this and hope to see you around. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've changed the status to 2ndopinion to request a second opinion as you mentioned. A comment needs to be left on the GA nomimation page per WP:Good article nominations/guidelines#Second opinion. I'll leave that to the regulars here. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Nevermind on the comment part. DQ requested a second opinion at WP:GAN#TRANS. Looks like this is just waiting on that now. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll give this a review in the next couple days so that we can finally wrap this up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here are the issues I found:

• I'd re-add the first cite to the end of the paragraphs that don't have it in the accident section.
  •  Done N419BH 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Using modifiers like "should have" and the like is discouraged unless you're quoting something. I see that a few times in the investigation and I can't tell if that's the article saying it or the safety board.
  •  Done Cited to the NTSB It's both the safety board saying it and the FAA, though you're right in those two sentences it's not a direct quote. Transport category airplanes are required by law (14 CFR 25.121 to be exact) to be able to lose an engine at V₁ and still take off, climb to a safe altitude, and thence return to a safe landing. N419BH 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Management was aware of this." I'd prefer a cite here, ideally a separate one, though if it's the first ref then that's alright.
  •  Done removed. The article elsewhere mentions that McDonnell Douglas had advised American (presumably American management) against performing the procedure. That particular sentence sounds more like blame deflection than an encyclopedic sentence. N419BH 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Officials at Los Angeles International Airport, the destination airport, were careful to keep the arriving news media away from passengers' relatives, who were waiting for the arrival of Flight 191." any reason as to why? also cite needed.
  •  Done simply removed. It's common practice when an airplane goes down but isn't exactly reported on...making it hard to cite. Not exactly material to the accident, more drama than anything else N419BH 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• A couple paragraphs in the aftermath section are missing cites.
  •  Done cited a couple, removed others that are more material to the DC-10 and not AAL 191 N419BH 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Of the three first-generation wide-body aircraft—the Boeing 747, the DC-10, and the L-1011—the 747 is the only one still in production. The DC-10 and its modern variant, the McDonnell Douglas MD-11, is now primarily used as a cargo aircraft. The Lockheed L-1011 is hardly used any more; a few examples fly with the Royal Air Force as tankers." this paragraph doesn't seem necessary to me, especially since the next one notes when it stopped being used.
  •  Done gone N419BH 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Ref #3 needs a title.
  •  Done already has one
• Ref #15 needs a publisher.
  •  Done N419BH 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold, and will pass it when these issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Sales of the airplane would never recover" - I added citation needed. By the way, why here (=enwiki) GA nomination are announced only on talk pages? Bulwersator (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Hard to substantiate without interpreting data...aka Original Research, so it's been removed. The other claims in that paragraph are substantiated later.

They are both on the talk pages and at WP:GAN. It's just easier to put on the talk page instead of the other one due to the sheer quantity of them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks guys. Will be working on these in the coming days. N419BH 19:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And of course, the severe storms that pounded the midwest have left me without power for the past couple days. Will be working on this tomorrow now that it's back but have real work in the morning. Please either extend the review or hold off closing it in the interim. N419BH 05:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Never mind, sleep can wait and there's always Mountain Dew. All listed tasks are  Done N419BH 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The Los Angeles Times ref (now the first one) still needs a title. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
        •  Done That ref was print only and wasn't added by me, so I can't find a title. As the same information is provided in the NTSB report (appendix C to be exact) I have deleted the ref. N419BH 20:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright; everything else checks out now so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Further unsolicited comments

Having just wandered by, I thought I'd mention the following:

• The footnote needs a reference  Done...kinda...the ref tags aren't playing nice together. Know how to fix?
• The lead should not have any references in it (since it should be summarizing material from elsewhere in the article)  Done

Cheers -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)