Jump to content

Talk:ICON A5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Awards

[edit]

I have removed the attention flag after a tidy up of mainly woffle and promotional material, not sure about the awards section, or if any of the awards are that important so I will leave it to others to look at that. MilborneOne (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What kind of notable awards are given to prototypes? More to the point this article is starting to look more and more like the product of the Icon PR department and less like an encyclopedia article. Some tagging is in order I think and then some serious clean-up. - Ahunt (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh! I did do a big clear up last night and removed most of the non-encyclopedic stuff but a SPA added it all back in during the night. We may need to seek some protection if the user keeps turning this into a ICON website. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it needs some more rewording and clean up. I should get to that later on today. Too bad we don't know an admin who could protect the page or better yet block the COI editor for not following COI rules. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You rang? ;) I put a uw-advert4 on the editor's page, if he starts spamification again that'll be it. Hopefully he'll discuss though. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have run though the article and removed the spammy language and the filler, etc. The awards all seem to check out. The company must have entered it in every design competition that they could find. While giving awards for prototypes is unusual in aviation, it has been done before. The Case of the Eclipse 500 and the Collier Trophy comes to mind. That became a bit of an "omelet situation". - Ahunt (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it helps with the sales exposure as they appear to have at least $3 million in deposits and that doesnt count the guys who paid the $100,000 for the first 100 slots. Refundable I hope? MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...the Eclipse won the Collier Trophy? Facepalm Facepalm I guess that's going to be looked back on like when the Renault Alliance won Car of the Year! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly wasn't one of the highlights of aviation history in retrospect. Of note the Eclipse deposits for aircraft after #260 were also "refundable", in theory. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

@Ahunt, The Bushranger, MilborneOne, and Huntster: Looks like the list has continued to grow,and today was converted into a full list. Honestly, this just isn't encyclopedic, and should be reduced to one sentence mentioning any truly noteworthy awards, if at all. I'm adding a prose tag,and will wait for any comments before going forward. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to convert it to prose-only, please feel free. I simply didn't see a point to it being half-and-half. Awards do, in my opinion, help express the notability of the subject, though. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above several years ago, these do seem to be legitimate awards and not just PR fluff, although I still question the wisdom of the awarding organizations having given out awards to "ideas" or "prototypes". The aircraft is in production now, though, and any awards from 2015 onwards should represent more than just "potential achievements". None of these were as obviously bad as giving Eclipse the Collier or even Obama the Noble Peace Prize. Since they don't overwhelm the article and seem legit, I would suggest that they be retained in the article, but rendered in as few words as possible. The current list format looks okay to me for that purpose. - Ahunt (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accident

[edit]

Time to reinstate the "Incidents" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.216.152.113 (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification tag

[edit]

@Cornersss:, you added a "Why" tag, but I am not sure what part of that sentence you feel needs to be explained. Could you please let me know, so that the tag can be resolved? Sario528 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sario528:, Was just trying to find the why tag you were talking about and could not find one in the article, unless removed already? I havent reread the whole article yet, mind reminding me of what you speak of?Cornersss (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornersss:, the tag was added in this edit, but was removed (and additional details added) in the next edit. Sario528 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Sario528:, I added the "why" for "an angle of attack indicator, an unusual feature in general aviation aircraft". Why is the indicator an unusual feature? If its "unusual", its should be easy to state why. Cornersss (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ICON A5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halladay accident in lede

[edit]

@The Bushranger: I added a single sentence about the accident at the end of the lede. The aircraft has much more noteriaty in the context of the accident than it did prior to it because of widespead coverage of the accident in mainstream media. I don't understand why you removed the sentence from the lede claiming that it is undue weight. If you don't like the way that it is worded, please feel free to take a stab at rewording it. Also, citations in the lede are required in this case per WP:CITELEAD. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough with the cites, but still it feels like WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE to say "a famous person crashed in one of these aircraft" in the lede. We don't, for instance, mention that Buddy Holly died in a Beechcraft Bonanza crash in the Bonanza's lede. Right now, it's a big news deal. Next week, it'll be just another accident (that likely had nothing at all to do with the aircraft itself and a lot to do with the "doctor with a Mustang" syndrome, unfortunatly). If it turns out to have been a fault with the aircraft when the accident report comes out, then it can go in the lede possibly. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the Beechcraft Bonanza was not mentioned in Buddy Holly's death is becasue it was not a significant aspect of that story. The A5 was a central aspect of the reporting in the case of Halladay's accident, probably due to the previous accidents within a short period of time and involving key employees in the firm. Also, Halladay appeared in promotional material for the aircraft and was the first customer of the 2018 model. Irrespective of the cause of the crash, it is notable for the media coverage it has received. We can add that the cause of the accident is unknown at this time or that aircraft malfunction is not implicated at this time (with verifiable source to that effect).
I understand your concern with recentism, but it seems to me that this accident will continue to remain part of the history of the A5. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have two minds about whether this should be mentioned in the lede or not. On the first hand initial information indicates that this is most likely just another "personnel-pilot-judgement-low flying" accident and thus could have happened in any type of aircraft. But the company has actively promoted sales to non-pilots to grow the market and also has actively promoted low flying over water in their promo materials, videos, etc to push thrill-seeking to lure those non-pilots in. Halladay was also widely featured in press releases and videos as just the sort of person they were trying to attract. Paul Bertorelli of AVweb makes many of the same points. He writes, "Is it realistic to train people from zero time, give them low-altitude hazard awareness doctrine and turn them loose? Is the Halladay crash a leading indicator that this is iffy, or just an unfortunate one-off? No one knows." As a former tactical aviation helicopter pilot, with lots of low flying time in the Cold War, I have my own concerns about this marketing model. On one hand this may end up being yet another celebrity death that doesn't affect sales or it, combined with the recent huge increase in the price of the A5, may have a serious impact, it is too early to tell yet. Does it belong in the lead? I am not sure. If sales drop and the company folds because of this, then it certainly does. If the accident investigation confirms that this is a low flying accident then the two fatal accidents we have already do form a trend. Will the company at least change its marketing? Even that would be significant. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to proceed is to defer to WP policies and guidelines. The most applicable seem to be WP:weight, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:recentism. The guidelines on weight and proportion point out "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports" and suggests that editors weigh the "overall significance to the article topic". Recentism is concerned with how significant the information will be using the "ten-year test", i.e., what will the content's significance be ten years from now.
Since the accident was not an isolated event and for reasons I've already discussed above, it is significant to the article, at least is is now. As to recentism, there are basically two scenarios: 1) the A5 enjoys continued success and has a long production life; 2) the accidents and subsequent investigations significantly effect its viability. If scenario 1, then ten years from now this article will have a fully developed history section about all of the significant events in the life of the aircraft, and absent many more catastrophic effects, these recent accidents will remain a significant part of that history. If scenario 2, then the investigations will be a significant part of the market failure of the aircraft. Either way, the accidents are significant.
I suggest that we tag the sentence about the accident in the lede with an {{As of}} tag so that editors will make sure that the information is up to date. In the process of updating info about the accident, editors can re-evaluate its significance after more time has passed and if necesary tag it with a recentism tag at that time. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still do not see how this incident is any more important than the others noted, except that he is a sports person. All of the incidents so far seem to be pilot error; if for some reason this changes with the Hallday incident, perhaps we can revisit this, but at this time there is simply no reason for this to be in the lede. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. If you can back it up with reference to WP policy and facts, it will be considered by the editors here. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no dog in this fight, but the Halladay article says that he transmitted three maydays prior to the crash. Maybe everyone should keep their powder dry until the report comes out.161.69.123.11 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that media report and it says the sheriff's office said that three maydays were sent to ATC, but I think that is apocryphal. The preliminary NTSB report makes no mention of it, and given the rest of the details there, it is fairly unlikely. - Ahunt (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ICON_A5&oldid=1207690433"