Talk:Eastern Air Lines Flight 512/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 00:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Accident "Weather Bureau" - I would recommend listing the full name of the organization "United States Weather Bureau" as it was known at the time, and also a wikilink, especially since this is no longer the official name of the organization.

Wikilinked. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"One mile (two kilometers)" - One mile is closer to 1.5 kilometers than two kilometers.

Altered conversion template. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The rear section of the fuselage remained relatively intact, and engine parts [...] scattered in the area" - I'd personally think that but is a better conjunction that and in this case, since the holding together of the rear fuselage is contrasted to the scattering of pits of wreckage everywhere. What do you think?

I reworded it to make it clearer. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passengers and crew There's a couple inconsistencies between here and the infobox. The infobox lists 45 passengers and 6 crew for 51 overall, but this section lists the 6 crew but also claims 51 passengers (total 57). Which one is right? The lead also states 51. I'm thinking it's 45 and 6 with the 51 passengers just being an innocent slip up of passengers vs. occupants.

You list 25 killed elsewhere in the article, but the mentions in this section only add up to 24 (the pilot, copilot, flight engineer, and 21 passengers). Is #25 the sixth crewmember? If so, it would be worth mentioning.

So, the right answer is that there were 51 people on the board; 45 paying passengers, 3 working in the cockpit, 2 flight attendants, and one Eastern Airlines crew member who was apparently in the jump seat in the cockpit, but not working during the flight. I need to dig back through my clippings archive to verify all that, but I moved the archive for that article offline so I need to dig it back out to be 100% sure.

Investigation - First sentence of first paragraph. What word is "who" referring to? I find this sentence to be grammatically confusing, although this might just be me.

Agree, I reworded that one. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: The JFK International Airport article states that the airport where the crash occurred was commonly known as Idlewild, but officially known as "New York International Airport, Anderson Field" at this time. I agree with your decision to refer to the airport by the common note throughout the text, but would it be appropriate to throw in a parenthetical note or a footnote at the first instance of Idlewild stating what the official name was?

I don't know. I've been thinking about it and in any of the articles I've worked on, and in any of the sources, I've only seen it referred to as Idlewild or JFK (later). I've never seen much about Anderson Field. I'm content with that information being buried in the wikilink to JFK that's included in the article, since the naming of the airport is more relevant to that article, and not as central to this article. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References Some of the NYT citations have authors attached, and others don't. If authors are available for the others (which may not be so), it would be best to list the authors of the articles.

Not all NYTimes articles have authors listed, some of them are staff articles. If there was an author listed in the byline, I have listed it in the reference. Otherwise, there was no author given.

Overall, great job! I'll place this one on hold. The main thing between this one and GA is the inconsistencies in the passengers and crew section, but that shouldn't be too hard to fix. Hog Farm (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging nominator - RecycledPixels. Hog Farm (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm, caught me at an unexpectedly tough time, I'll sit down at this early next week. RecycledPixels (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, answered most of your questions, still need to dig through my records to clear up the number of occupants mistake. Sorry, I've been slammed in real life, and it's getting worse, not better. I'll see if I can get this initial round of issues wrapped up in the next few days. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycledPixels: - Two things. First, the ASN reference supports the total of number of occupants, so you might not have to dig in your records. Second, does this pass WP:NEVENT? Sorry to bring up notability now, but NEVENT states that most accidents are not notable. Two of the criteria to determine if an event is notable are continuance of coverage and geographic scope. Most of the coverage at the time of the accident seems to be from the area where the crash occurred. Secondly, the NYT coverage is all from the week after the crash, and the incident report I'm presuming occurs with most aircraft incidents. If you can find where this crash influenced aviation policy of practices, that would be an indication of notability. Also, finding coverage from outside the local area or the immediate time frame of the incident would prove notability. Does the Aviation Wikiproject have any notability statements to help spot accident notability? Hog Farm (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The standards used by WP:AVIATION are the crash of a scheduled commercial flight resulting in the loss of life is always notable. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good to me. Hog Farm (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycledPixels: - Hey, it's been awhile, and this review hasn't gone super far. GA reviews aren't really designed to go on indefinitely. I'm thinking I might fail this one this time, simply because it's been ongoing for some time and some consistency issues need to be addressed. However, if you get some time later and get it resolved, I'd be perfectly happy to try to pick up the review quickly if you get it renominated later. With no response or work on the article within 7 days, I'll fail it. Hog Farm (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failing for inactivity, RecycledPixels, I'm willing to rereview this if you get the work done and the article renominated. Hog Farm (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, after a long time away from this article, I dug up the original source clippings about the number of passengers/crew members. The confusion lies in the sixth crew member being a non-working employee occupying the jump seat. Once I verified that information, I added mention of that additional crew member in the passengers section and corrected the figures that I had there. If you feel like taking another look at this now that I have renominated the article, that would be great, but it is obviously not expected given the long delay since this was closed for inactivity and the present time. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy with other reviews at the moment, but if this is still unclaimed once I work through those, I can take this one on. Hog Farm _Talk 22:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]