Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sutton Wick air crash/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:56, 28 September 2010 [1].
Sutton Wick air crash[edit]
Sutton Wick air crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Here’s one myself and several others have been working on for the past few weeks. It is the story of a little-known air crash, and very little is written on it anywhere at all. We have wrung sources dry to try and provide a detailed and interesting account of the crash, the investigation and the aftermath. It is short, yes, but is the most comprehensive account of the tragedy out there. A big thank you to Malleus Fatuorum for reviewing the article’s GA and copyediting and expanding the article, and to fellow aviation enthusiasts MilborneOne for working (and creating) the article and Nimbus227 for finding sources, which are in short supply. Wackywace converse | contribs 13:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question—is "disaster" the appropriate title? Looking over Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United Kingdom, Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States etc, it appears that Wikipedia convention is to use the more neutral "… crash" or "… accident", aside from a few special cases like Hindenburg disaster where "disaster" is part of the common name. Apologies if this one's already been discussed elsewhere. – iridescent 14:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, upon reconsideration, you're right. I've changed the name of the article, but seemed to be having trouble renaming the FAC template. I'd be grateful if someone more experienced than me could have a quick look through my contributions to see if I've done it correctly, and the FAC template will work as normal. Thanks, Wackywace converse | contribs 15:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - a short but informative article. Some concerns:
- Is XH117 the serial number or the tail number? The linked articles suggest that the former is used for military aircraft and the latter for civilian
- No. X engine or the No. X engine?
- Is the author of the 2004 text Graham Perry or Perry Graham?
- "and struck a number of high tension cables[3], some trees, which ripped the port side wing from the fuselage, and impacted with the ground" - grammar, and the footnote should appear after the comma
- Which meaning of caravan are you using here?
- Spell out numbers under 10
- "House of Commons" or "House Of Commons"?
- "Ward continued, saying that the loss of power from No. 1 was caused by it being feathered as a precautionary measure and the fuel starvation to No. 2 engine was caused by an incorrectly fitted non-return valve in the supply line from No. 1 fuel tank.[3] No. 2 fuel tank had been isolated and two smaller fuel tanks in the port wing had not been selected during the flight" - this repeats some of the information from the preceding quote, and is also somewhat confusing to readers unfamiliar with aircraft design. How did feathering cause the failure? What does "isolated" mean in this context, and how did that happen?
- Lead says "those" found responsible were charged, article text mentions only a single technician - which is correct?
- Ref 2 needs retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, leaning towards Oppose. I'm a bit surprised to see this here so soon after its GA review, which I only closed yesterday. I was in fact debating whether to fail it, as the review appeared to have been abandoned by the nominator, but instead I decided to address the major outstanding issues myself. I have some doubt that all of the available sources have been consulted. For instance I added the Gero book myself yesterday, but I've never read it; I just took the comments made by another editor during the review at face value. I'm fairly happy with this as a GA, but I'm unconvinced that it's ready for FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it may sound like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, but I am very sorry for not working as hard as I could working on the article during the GA. I myself have never read Gero's book (I'm trying to find a copy, though) or the article in The Times. I'd say that I could have worked harder on this article, but I still feel it is worthy of FAC. Wackywace converse | contribs 06:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- Bibliography should be alphabetical.
- Current ref 2 ... needs a last access date.
- If the Gerro book hasn't actually been consulted yet, how can you be sure that a thorough search of the relevant literature has been done?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review
issue:File:Bristol.centaurus.arp.750pix.jpg is brought to Commons by Stahlkocher on the basis that it was uploaded by Arpingstone who released it into the public domain. However, there is no visible trail for others to verify that this was the case (perhaps Arpingstone released it under GFDL or CC, or it was not Apringstone who took the image and Stahlkocher was confused, etc). Luckily, Arpingstone is quite active on the project; I have asked him to verify the case.[2] Jappalang (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.