Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avianca Flight 52/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Avianca Flight 52

Nominator(s): Veggies (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a passenger flight that crashed in New York due to fuel starvation in January 1990. I believe it has reached FA-quality after an extensive research and editing process by myself over the past few weeks that greatly expanded on the history, dynamics, and effects of the crash. Veggies (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few paragraphs with unreferenced information at the end. That will cause trouble during the FAC. One rule of thumb is to make sure everything is referenced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the media portrayals, I'm not sure how to cite those. It's a weird situation where I can show you that these things exist:

Mayday: List_of_Mayday_episodes#Season_2_.282004.29
Why Planes Crash: [2]
Day After Tomorrow: Certain scene in the movie

but I can't cite them. Suggestions? -- Veggies (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason we have {{Cite video}}. There are also minor points which should still be referenced, like "The flight had previously been given two delay estimates that had passed." and "The TRACON controller..." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used the cite vid template as you suggested. As for citations, those sentences refer back to the citations immediately prior. Everything is cited, but I don't put inline-citations after every sentence. My rule of thumb is one inline-citation per three sentences, so long as all three sentences are in the citation just before. -- Veggies (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except WP:MINREF requires citations after direct quotations etc., and in general the references go after the cited material, not before. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I put the relevant citations in front of the quotes. -- Veggies (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: If I've satisfied your concerns, would you consider supporting the article for FA? -- Veggies (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was but a drive-by comment. Best of luck, though! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nimbus227

Just had a skip read through and the prose looks quite good. Some things I've noticed, variant info in the lead is too much detail (707-321B), just plain Boeing 707 would do. JFK abbreviation is unlinked (how it should be) but 'NTSB' is blue (consistency of format). What time of day did this accident happen?

I can see no metric conversions for units. The plural of 'lb' is lb. Some of the footnotes are uncited. I may have some book sources on this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over. I made changes to the detail, linked abbreviation, time of day, and units of measurement. -- Veggies (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a lot of text being added or re-arranged, the article needs to be stable (WP:WIAFA 1e) otherwise reviewers can get very confused (unreviewed text with problems could be added after a 'support' comment for instance). I'm not sure if the exact time and the UTC link is needed in the lead, it is generally assumed that times are local, probably a guideline on it somewhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, I just finished renovations yesterday and submitted it to FAC right after that. Maybe I should have let it breathe for a day, but there's no one editing this article presently but myself—no edit wars or contentious issues. As for time of day, I followed the example on WP:TIMEZONE. -- Veggies (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've posted some other thoughts on the article talk page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nimbus227: If I've satisfied your concerns, would you consider supporting the article for FA? -- Veggies (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment from Curly Turkey

Is the topic of this article the flight or the crash? It opens "Avianca Flight 52 was a regularly scheduled flight from Bogotá to New York, via Medellín." but the rest of the lead is entirely about the crash. If the article is about the crash, I suggest retitling and rewriting the opening sentence to make it clear the article is about the crash. If the article is indeed supposed to be about the flight itself, then the lead will have to be rewritten to give an overview of the flight itself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is about the flight on Jan 25, 1990, that ended in a crash, as well as the subsequent effects and the investigation that followed. I can definitely incorporate more details from the flight itself before the crash into the lede. It's a good point. Thank you. -- Veggies (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to me that the standard is to name articles after the flight. Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, but notice how thye open differently: "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370/MAS370) was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 ...". The opening sentence of this one gives the impression that the article is going to be about a regularly scheduled flight. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind, it appears Veggies already reworded it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Curly Turkey: If I've satisfied your concerns, would you consider supporting the article for FA? -- Veggies (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, but I've only barely glanced at the article. To give it my support I would first have to give it a thorough review. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest increasing the size of the map slightly. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: The image itself or the thumbnail in the article? -- Veggies (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thumbnail in the article - since it uses upright it should be scalable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I upscaled it a bit. -- Veggies (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: If I've satisfied your concerns, would you consider supporting the article for FA? -- Veggies (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Veggies: A satisfactory image review is generally just that, it won't result in "support" because it is just one aspect of the overall review, which also takes in prose, structure, sourcing and comprehensiveness. In any case, please do not solicit support from reviewers, as here and above -- they can make their own decisions and are quite at liberty to neither support nor oppose outright if they so choose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this review has been open over a month without attracting any support for promotion so I'll be archiving it shortly. Per FAC instructions, pls wait two weeks before re-nominating this (or any) article here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.