Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paradise Airlines Flight 901A/archive2

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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2023 [1].

Paradise Airlines Flight 901A

Nominator(s): RecycledPixels (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Airlines Flight 901A is about an airline flight from Oakland to South Lake Tahoe that never reached its destination. The article describes the flight, the aircraft, and the aftermath of the investigations that were launched when the aircraft crashed into a mountain.

I nominated the article for FA this past May, but it was closed for a lack of participation. That discussion is available at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paradise Airlines Flight 901A/archive1. By the time it had closed, however, it had received a thorough review from Vaticidalprophet and PCN02WPS. It also received a review during the GA process and has appeared on the DYK section of the front page. I feel that it's ready to appear on the main page in the Featured Article slot. Do you? RecycledPixels (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat

Will read back through this soon! I expect to have few if any additional comments :) Vaticidalprophet 21:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given I commented extensively at the archived review, I don't have much to say here, and think I can get away with such. I've split a long paragraph with a natural breakpoint, and did the same for another shortly after the previous nom. I really only note that you refer to the company's president by his full name and title twice in the same section ("Airline grounded"); this might actually be defensible, because it's at opposite ends of a long section with a whole lot going on in it. I'm happy to support again per my feedback last time. Vaticidalprophet 07:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

Ditto to what Vat said above! Looking forward to taking another look at this one. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, when you say "He likely tried to fly through", it sounds like "He" is referring to the flight crew instead of the pilot, based on the sentence before (even though that pronoun wouldn't make sense for "the flight crew"). I'd change to "The pilot likely tried..."
Good catch, changed. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In "Accident", "the second worst" should be hyphenated (second-worst)
Fixed in previously suggested rewording. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"An additional 43 were brought the next day" → sort of sounds like you're talking about FBI technicians being brought in, recommend "An additional 43 victims..."
Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Paradise Airlines president Herman Jones" → I was going to say that "President" here should be caps, per MOS:JOBTITLE, but looking at that page (and seeing "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972." as a correct example), I think this may be correct and in that case you could change "Douglas County District Attorney John Chrislaw" to "district attorney" to follow the same format (unless I am misunderstanding something)
Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got, well done as before! Almost all of my concerns were addressed at the first FAC so this is just what I've picked up on my second read-through. 15:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)PCN02WPS (talk | contribs)

PCN02WPS, thanks for the additional read-through. I have addressed those issues. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome stuff, article looks great. In combination with my comments at the first FAC, I am happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

For future reference, your chance can be enhanced by transcluding the nomination on the review page. I have done this for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Thank you. RecycledPixels (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AviationFreak

Given my username and interest in the topic, I figured I'd give this one a go.

The search for the crashed plane and the recovery of the wreckage and the bodies of the victims took most of a month - While this appears to be technically true, I think it might paint the wrong picture given that the aircraft was found within 24 hours and searchers had located and recovered all but two of the victims within a week.
I have reworded that sentence. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
aborting the landing attempt links to go-around, which occurs when an aircraft is on final; whether the aircraft was actually on final at any point is not mentioned in the article, but my suspicion is that it didn't.
I don't have any evidence that the plane was on final approach, and I doubt it as well due to the communication between the pilots and the airline representative at the airport. I have unlinked it. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the pilot lost awareness of his location... - This wording implies the captain was the only one involved in the operation of the plane, but it appears a first officer and flight engineer were aboard as well
Changed pilot to flight crew. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think using phrases like "second-deadliest" would be more descriptive than "second-worst", as "worst" is colloquially a pretty subjective term.
Changed wording. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Flight 901A... On the morning of Sunday, March 1, 1964, it took off from the company's base... - In my mind, a "flight" is a set route between a number of airports that is served by one or more "aircraft". This paragraph muddles the two, implying that the "flight" took off from KOAK (which was not even part of its route).
Changed "it" to the aircraft type.
where a full load was waiting - It appears 78 were waiting, but 81 is a full load. Suggest changing to "where more were waiting".
Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the U.S. Weather Bureau forecast for the Lake Tahoe region predicted weather conditions that would have been unsuitable for flights, the Paradise Airlines dispatcher estimated that by Flight 901A's scheduled arrival time... - Was the NWS' forecast a "prediction" of future weather conditions or a statement of current ones (at time of the forecast's release)? In other words, was the dispatcher directly disagreeing with the NWS publication?
The CAB report (page 2) states, "He then proceeded to the Paradise Airlines dispatch office where he reviewed weather sequences and forecasts from Service "A" teletype. Although the USWB forecast poor flying conditions at Lake Tahoe, the company dispatcher forecast more favorable weather based on his evaluation of the weather data, and so briefed the pilot of [the aircraft]". So, yes, the source is saying that the dispatcher was directly disagreeing with the NWS publication. The dispatcher's actions were further discussed in the CAB report on pages 12 and 13. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A map of KTVL's position relative to South Lake Tahoe and Genoa Peak (especially one that includes 901A's estimated flight path) would be useful.
- I've done this one (I'm a sucker for a good map) - Feel free to play around with the image sizing, placement, etc. if you feel it ought to be changed.
Suggest linking visual approach.
Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At 11:21 a.m., the pilot of Flight 901A, near Lake Tahoe, reported... - To whom?
Oakland ARTCC. Clarified and cited. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usage of both "Lake Tahoe Airport" and "Tahoe Valley Airport" is confusing, given they refer to the same airport.
I've searched out all uses of Lake Tahoe Airport and replaced them with Tahoe Valley Airport. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking Ceiling (cloud)
Is there any information regarding the timing of the aircraft's maneuvers above the lake and the subsequent crash? I know that might not exist given these are eyewitness statements, but if there's even an eyewitness estimate of the crash time that would be worth including.
The CAB report reports one of the witness statements reported "approximately 11:30" when they heard the aircraft overhead then later heard the engines stop, but the information provided from witness statements was imprecise enough that I didn't think it should be included, especially since the pilots had only just contacted the passenger agent at the airport at 11:27. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking Daggett Pass
Ah, that's a new article that didn't exist before. Linked. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Natural feature heights are explicitly noted as ASL, whereas flight altitudes are not. I'm a bit torn about whether to make any change over this since it could make things confusing, but I noticed it and I figure I'll point it out in case anyone has suggestions.
flying almost level - Do we know if it was slightly nose-up or nose-down?
"The aircraft initially struck several trees on the west slope of the ridge, at approximately 8,675 feet m.s.l., slightly right-wing-low in a nearly level flight attitude." was what the CAB report says on page 8, but noted that elevator trim was set to three degrees nose up. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leaving a trail of wreckage approximately 900 feet (270 m) long and no survivors - Are we sure everyone died on impact, or is it possible some died in the hours that followed with exposure as a factor (it sounds like it was pretty cold)? To me, the current wording implies that all died on impact.
I have removed the mention of no survivors from the description of the impact site. It is later mentioned in the aftermath section that initial searchers found no survivors, so no need to make the assumption that the impact with the mountain was not survivable. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
discovered to be missing sounds sort of contradictory IMO. Suggest "determined to be missing".
Changed. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
found no traces of the missing aircraft - I think "no trace" is standard.
Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our article suggests "lieutenant colonel" should be abbreviated "Lt. Col." or "Lt Col" - all or nothing with the periods.
Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a sourcing review, but personally I'd like a more reliable source for the claim that Looters had already been to the site and stolen cash and jewelry from the crash victims before rescuers found them than an interview in a USA Today article.
It's a Salinas local paper, not USA today, but I haven't found one. I have found other reports from victims families telling of the same thing such as [2] and [3]. My lack of finding anything suggests that it was not widely reported at the time and only came out later, but perhaps someone else would have more success in finding something from around the same time frame.
Gotcha. The paper is part of the USA TODAY network, but (from their website) it looks like they do a good job of letting local journalists freely tell their stories. This is more of a concern for a source review anyway.
Our article and cursory Googling suggests that Sheriff deputies should be pluralized to "Sheriff's deputies".
Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
for clues to why it crashed - Suggest "for clues as to why it crashed"§
Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
aircraft's nose wheel - Suggest slightly more technical "nose gear" (perhaps with a link to landing gear).
Change made with alternate wording since it was just the wheel, as I understand it. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking Carson Valley Improvement Club Hall
Wow, in all my searching for what the heck the CVIC hall was, I never realized that we already had an article on it. This CIVC hall came up in the previous FAC Reviews. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did a flight fly between the morning of March 3 and the noon suspension of flights?
I had to re-review the source. A flight was completed on the 3rd, which triggered the FAA suspension which actually took effect at noon on March 4. I had the date wrong. The flight scheduled for the morning of March 4 was cancelled for mechanical reasons. I fixed the suspension date but I didn't mention the cancelled March 4th flight. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The agency said that the airline could appeal the suspension, but that in the meantime, it could not conduct flights until a decision was made on the appeal - "in the meantime" would mean the time between the suspension and the appeal, so this wording doesn't make sense.
The suspension was effective at noon on March 4. The airline could appeal the decision to suspend the FAA order, but the order would remain in effect until a hearing was held and a ruling to overturn the order was made. The final ruling in favor of the FAA wasn't made until April 6. Between March 4 and April 6, the airline could not operate flights. And it couldn't operate flights after April 6, either, because they lost their appeal of the FAA's order to suspend their operating certificate. After some grandstanding where the company owner said it would just fly the flights anyway, and the FAA advised him that such actions wouldn't have a happy ending, and the company shut down for good. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest changing front edges to "leading edges"
You don't think that's too technical? I wavered about that earlier and concluded that the front edges of the wings was more understandable to the average reader than leading edges of the wings. I can change it, I haven't yet though. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably understandable in context, but the decision ultimately lies with you (I don't have strong feelings). Either way, our article should probably be linked.
the FAA's "over-restrictive rules" about flying in adverse weather conditions was to blame for the accident - "was" should be "were", as "rules" is plural
Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to him, the aircraft was only three or four miles from the Tahoe Airport and that the pilots might have already had had the airport in sight by the time the Tahoe Airport agent told them that the weather report stated that there was only a 2,000-foot (610 m) ceiling - The first "that" should be removed, and this sentence is a bit unwieldy IMO given the additional clause about the ceiling. Might be worth breaking into two if possible.
Reworded. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once the hearing commenced - Didn't the hearing commence with the jurisdiction argument? If the jurisdiction argument was outside of the hearing itself, At the outset of the appeal hearing before the FAA should be reworded.
The way I understood the events was that the hearing was expected to take the form of the FAA making the case for the suspension, followed by the airline offering a rebuttal, but at the very beginning, before testimony started, the airline made a procedural objection as to whether or not the hearing should take place at all since it claimed the FAA did not have any jurisdiction over the airline. I've changed the second sentence to "once testimony commenced..." RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was not very fluent with the English language - Suggest just "He was not fully proficient in English"
This wording was a compromise from an earlier review. The original wording, and the wording of the source, was "limited fluency in English", which to me sounds like his English was far worse than "not fully proficient in English"
Paradise Airlines president Herman Jones called the hearings as "a great miscarriage of justice" - "as" should be removed
Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest unlinking "serial number" since it's a pretty common and nonspecific term; aircraft registration (especially the United States section) could be pipe linked to "tail number" though.
Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In its past, it had been operated by Trans World Airlines before it was retired. - To a reader who is not familiar with the meaning of "retired" within aviation, this could be confusing IMO. Suggest "It had been previously operated by Trans World Airlines."
Changed to similar. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is "pilot" proper terminology here? I'm more familiar with the term "captain", but this could have been different in the '60s or there could be more nuance.
Changed to captain. The CAB report refers to him as the captain. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three different clauses separated by "and"s in the penultimate sentence on Norris; suggest using commas instead.
Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know how many hours Worthley had in general (i.e., not just as flight engineer)?
I have found no sources suggesting that Worthley had ever accumulated hours as a pilot. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth linking first officer and flight engineer (and captain if it's linked). I'm not sure though, I'm "in" the aviation world enough that I'm not sure how recognizable those terms are to a non-aviationfreak.
I have linked the terms. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the start of the "Investigation" section, it might be worth spelling out "Civil Aeronautics Bureau" again since it was last spelled out two sections above and is referred to extensively.
Not done, I have been challenged when I have done that in the past, per MOS:ACRO1STUSE. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
pilots had made 11 reports of problems with the plane's directional instruments in the months before the crash - Do we know how many months?
June 14, 1963 to February 29, 1964, so a bit less than nine months. Added with citation. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
instrument repairmen had worked on both altimeters in the plane that crashed on the day before - Suggest appending "the incident" just to make it clear what this is referring to.
I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting, but I changed "plane that crashed on the day before" to "plane that crashed in the incident". RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
right-hand fluxgate compass - I think referring to this as the "first officer's fluxgate compass" would be more appropriate, assuming they used the same seating arrangement as is used today.
Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking VFR in the quote
Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The technicians who had performed the work had also inspected and signed off on their own work - This is fairly standard, no? Don't see the need for inclusion.
It is something that is mentioned at least twice in the accident report (I fixed the citation that was referencing the wrong page). On page 18, in the analysis section, the report states, The installation of one fluxgate compass transmitter and the two altimeters was done by mechanics who worked without reference to available, approved maintenance manuals; the compasses were not swung, the pitot static system was not checked for leaks, and unauthorized personnel "inspected" their own work. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
would have caused the pilot to believe the aircraft was flying 280 feet (85 m) higher than its true altitude - The FO's altimeter (and presumably the FE's, though I don't know how a 3-person cockpit runs) would have apparently been working properly, and it's possible the pilots had caught the discrepancy and/or were wary of the instruments' accuracy. Suggest a reword to "would have indicated the aircraft was flying 280 feet..."
Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which would have meant that the aircraft's actual course could have been more to the north than what the instruments were indicating to the pilots - This feels clunky IMO. Suggest a reword to "which could have caused the indicated heading to be more southerly than the aircraft's true heading"
Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...its course, altitude, or both, were not being accurately shown on the aircraft's instruments... - AFAIK there were no instruments available in the '60s that would have displayed an aircraft's course. Suggest changing to "heading", assuming that's what's meant (unless the source specifically says "course")
Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Final paragraph both begins and ends with sentences starting in The report concluded that... - Suggest changing one so they're not stepping on each other's toes.
Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. I know I can be nitpicky, so if you have questions about these please let me know. Excellent work on the article, great to see an aviation-based article up at FAC! AviationFreak💬 03:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AviationFreak, thank you for your feedback. I ended up getting busier in RL than expected, so it took longer than expected to get through this list, but I believe all items have been addressed. When you get a chance, I would appreciate it if you take another look and see if you see anything else. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, this looks great! Thanks for the work you've put in, I don't see anything else from a second look at the article. Happy to support on prose. AviationFreak💬 14:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and comments by Gerald Waldo Luis

Hey there. I'm gonna put an image review first, then add prose comments. Gerald WL 06:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Constellation silhouette rationale says it's licensed in CC-BY SA 3.0, but then also says it is in PD because its made by the UK Government. Which one is correct?
I'm diving into WP Commons territory here with which I am very unfamiliar, but when the image was uploaded to Commons in 2009, it was originally assigned tagged with CC-BY SA 3.0, but a minute later the same uploaded added the PD-UK tag. I believe that the CC-BY SA tag is a mistake that the uploaded attempted to correct, but did so incorrectly. Hopefully I addressed it correctly, but I edited the image on Commons to revert the CC-BY SA license. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similar case with the Lake Tahoe image, where there are GNU, CC BY-SA 3.0, and CC BY 2.5 licenses.
I really don't know what to do with that. All three licenses were put on at the same time by the uploader, and the file has a statement that says "you may select the license of your choice", so I don't know enough about image copyright to determine if anything is wrong with it. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my misunderstanding; I just learned that some images allow for multi-licensing in PD and CCs, so you're good on this one.
The other licenses look good.
The alt texts look all good, sufficient and succint descriptions.
The Lake Tahoe caption shouldn't end with a dot as it's not a full sentence
Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last image caption could prob be expanded to like "Lockheed L-049 Constellation model" or something
Changed. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis Thank you for the suggestions. I have responded to your comments above. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all the issues above resolved I suppose this is a pass on images. I'll see if I can move on to prose comments soon! Gerald WL 17:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Gerald WL 04:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* At the infobox, I'm not sure the just in "(just east of Lake Tahoe)" is needed

Agreed. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After "Tahoe Valley Airport" suggest adding in the U.S. just to be consistent with the infobox, it never hurts to identify the country too

I think you're referring to the first sentence of the article. I have added it. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the plane. After the crashed plane was located"-- suggest changing crashed plane to crash site to avoid repetition of plane

Changed. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"at the Oakland International Airport"-- remove the

Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"where a more passengers were waiting"-- a more?

Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest using the redirect link of U.S. Weather Bureau instead of piping

I've linked to the redirect. I can't find it now, but my memory was that "back in the day", it was considered to be bad form to intentionally link to a redirect. But my searching for that guidance in article histories has been unsuccessful, and I'm probably confusing it with don't link to disambiguation pages. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"it was not showing it any obvious mechanical problems"-- two it

Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Genoa linked in "accident" but not on the lead?

Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"exceeded only by"-- why only?

Because of all of the single-plane crashes in United States history, only the American Airlines Flight 1 had more fatalities. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the wreckage" --> Most of it

The previous sentence used "it" to refer to the aircraft. Using "it" in the next sentence to change it from "most of the wreckage was shattered into tiny pieces" into "most of (the aircraft) was shattered into tiny pieces" which while probably technically true, is enough of a change in meaning that I'm not comfortable with it. The sentence was trying to refer to the parts of the wreckage that the investigators saw upon arrival. I've added "they found" after the second use of "wreckage" to clarify that. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link Las Vegas and San Fran per consistency with the other cities
I've linked Vegas and San Francisco as well as San Francisco Bay Area. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Just as company president Herman Jones"-- I thought we already knew who this guy is
He's actually identified four times in the article. His name is common enough and his role was minor enough that it seems harmless to re-identify him to the reader so they don't need to pause and rediscover who this Herman Jones character is each time. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Investigation: para 2, 11 is in digits; para 1, thirty is in text. WP:SPELL09 isn't really clear on this, but I think it must be consistent

Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"that the flat fee payment arrangements" --> "that the arrangements" would suffice, restating it in full, one sentence later, feels repetitive
Changed to financial arrangements to separate it from the procedures for operating in bad weather. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The attribution in the blockquote is unecessary given that we have known it is from the final report, so this again merely repeats information. The ref can be easily moved to "stated:".
Moved. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a "[5]:9-10" followed by a "[5]:10", why not remove the first and change the second to 9-10 since they're in the same area?
Not done. I've tried to keep the article relatively uncluttered from citation marks while still being verifiable, I don't feel that a somewhat similar-looking citation a few sentences before makes things too cluttered, and prevents someone from having to wade through page 9 when looking at the source for the next 3 sentences, the source of which are on page 10 only. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have for the comments! I'm pretty sure I missed some stuff and ended up pointing at a sentence with nothing wrong, but hopefully some are useful! Gerald WL 05:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RecycledPixels ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for the feedback, please take a look at my responses above and the edit to the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks much better now! I still find the attribution in the blockquote weird, but I find the same format in other FAs so I'll let that aside. Other than that, you've addressed my concerns, so regardless of my remaining ick I'm supporting this piece. (Also if you're interested, I'm looking for feedback in a PR). Gerald WL 04:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by MyCatIsAChonk

No spotcheck needed, looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, but add Template:Use American English or otherwise appropriate
Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the via parameter is inconsistent. Some citations say "Clipping from Newspapers.com" but some say "Clipping at Newspapers.com", and which part of it is linked is also inconsistent
I verified that all Newspapers.com citations are using the via= parameter. There were just a couple from the Californian that weren't. Removed wikilinks to the Newspapers.com article. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In some citations, Newspapers.com is wikilinked, but in some it's not- either link all or none for consistency
Addressed. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, having the word "clipping" present is odd in itself; in most articles I've seen that cite newspapers.com, the title's link directs to the clipping. I prefer this because otherwise the article is locked to the general reader

RecycledPixels, that's all from me, nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk: Sigh. The clippings were recently added by another editor, but were not done in a very standardized way. I have always found clippings from Newspapers.com to be problematic, especially with large articles that span multiple pages and columns. My original citations were to the printed newspaper at the time, and I provided a link to the first page of the article if the reader had a newspapers.com account for additional convenience. Adding universal access web links to those 1960's newspapers is convenient for the readers, but there's just not currently a way to do it well. I'm inclined to nuke all the links to the clippings if it's going to lead to a FAC objection, but I'll spend some time looking at it to see if there is any way to salvage the formatting and keep the links accessible. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk: I have reformatted the Newspapers.com citations according to the citation guidelines given at Wikipedia:Newspapers.com to link the clippings in the page number parameters. What really needs to happen is someone needs to come up with a {{cite newspapers.com}} citation template to deal with all the clipping URLs, archive URLs, and the fact that Wikipedia Library now no longer gives direct access to newspapers.com but through www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org URLs which aren't accessible to readers with normal newspapers.com accounts or users that don't meet the activity requirements. Hope that works for you. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - that was quick, great work! Also, if you get time, I'd appreciate any comments at this (less serious) FAC! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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