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

Reviewer: § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crum375, you have certainly put a lot of time into this article and it shows. Thank you for putting so much effort into making Wikipedia better.

The article reads very well and I actually enjoyed reading about Jessica and her story. I have listed changes that I recommend you make to further enhance this very good article and I hope you take it to FA review after this.

Great use of sources and inline notations.

• The use of NTSB should initially be spelled out as "National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)" [without the quotes] and then spelled as the initials NTSB.
  •  Done - Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The same needs to be done for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
  •  Done - Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The sentence The U.S. NTSB investigated the crash and concluded it was caused by the flight instructor's improper decision to take off in poor weather conditions, his overloading the aircraft, and his failure to maintain airspeed, which resulted in a stall. is pretty long and lacks some amount of clarity if only the failure to maintain airspeed caused the stall or all three things. One solution is The U.S. NTSB investigated the crash and concluded it was caused by the flight instructor's (1) improper decision to take off in poor weather conditions, (2) overloading the aircraft, and (3) failure to maintain airspeed, all of which resulted in a stall.
  •  Not done - I prefer to keep the lead as smooth-flowing as possible, and I feel that adding numbers or bullets would make it too complex. NTSB's conclusions and their rationale are described in some detail in the body; I prefer to have just a top-level summary in the lead. Your point about the uncertainty of how much each individual item contributed to the crash is valid, but I think stating "all of which resulted in a stall" would be putting words in the NTSB's mouth. As I understand it, the most immediate reason for the crash was the loss of airspeed which led to a stall followed by loss of control. The loss of airspeed resulted from a combination of poor decisions made by the pilot in command, including taking off in bad weather and over gross weight, described in detail in the article. In my opinion it's better to leave the relative contribution of each item a bit vague (although they are listed in the order of least to most direct causal factors) and let those readers who are very interested find more detailed explanations in the body. As I see it, a good lead is a balance between too much information (making it hard to read), and too little (making it hard to understand), and I think this paragraph is a reasonable compromise. Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Accepted

With your description of what the NTSB wrote I agree with you that unless it was clear they meant all three caused the crash then my change would not be appropriate. If they were not clear in their wording then you are better off not forcing a direction.§ Music Sorter § (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "City State" usage requires "cityname, statename," with commas after each name.
  • I tried it both ways, and I think it flows smoother without the second comma.
    • Actually that is an English grammar rule covered in the Chicago Manual of Style and numerous other sources. The FA article on Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. uses the comma after the state. It is also in the book by Robert Brittain called "A Pocket Guide to Correct Punctuation", page 32, ISBN 0-8120-2599-7.
    • Here are a few online sources as well if you are interested.
    • http://terriblywrite.wordpress.com/terribly-right-writing-for-the-web/top-5-comma-errors/
    • http://www.esc.edu/esconline/across_esc/writerscomplex.nsf/0/e979df0f2449d835852569c30072177b?OpenDocument
    • http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp

§ Music Sorter § (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In most of your examples (with one exception), the remaining phrase after the state comma is longer and/or more complex, which makes the comma more reasonable. In this example there are only two words: "Dubroff...arrived in Cheyenne...after a long day of flying from their Half Moon Bay, California departure point." I think putting the comma after the state here makes the final part of the sentence appear odd and disjointed. Crum375 (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: the above refers to the second case of "city, state". In the first one, describing where Dubroff was born, there are more words after the comma, so I am still thinking about it. In any case, it's a matter of style, and the MOS is just a suggestion, not a hard rule. I personally like to have the minimal amount of punctuation, unless the sentence reads very oddly, or is unclear. Crum375 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we are looking at two different things. I see what you might be thinking. I believe I failed to explain the "City, State," rule to which I have been referencing. The situation is only when you have the city name followed by the state name and there is more text after the state name. Let me quote from my Robert Brittain "..Correct Punctuation" guide to clarify my comment:

"Another situation involving grammatically nonessential elements which interrupt or change the normal word order is illustrated in such sentences as these:

He lived in Boston, Massachusetts, for three years.

Her youngest daughter was born on January 27, 1938, at four o'clock in the morning.

The offices of the company are located at 448 Barrow Street, New York, N.Y. 10014.

The elements enclosed within pairs of commas are all conventionally regarded as parenthetical. Notice that in the first sentence the word Massachusetts stands between two essential modifiers of the verb, which should normally be together. One might consider that this word is essential to your meaning, since it is important to know which of several Bostons you are talking about. But you should notice carefully that it is not grammatically essential to the construction of the sentence..."

• What they mean is that you can technically remove the name of the state and the grammar is fine, but when you add the state name to the city name then you need the two commas to parenthetically set off the state name. If you only list the city or only list the state that would be completely different and this rule does not apply. I am only talking about cases where both the city and state are listed you need the comma after the state if there is more text after that:

• "Dubroff was born in Falmouth, Massachusetts, to Lloyd..."
• "...flying from their Half Moon Bay, California, departure point."

• If you absolutely disagree I will not hold you up for that, but I disagree this particular point is only a matter of style; it is English grammar that is often missed. § Music Sorter § (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's a style issue, but I am willing to be overruled if I see I am in a tiny minority. If it's OK with you, I'll leave this for the FA reviewers, and let them decide. Crum375 (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Resolved

   – Agree to disagree for now
• No problem leaving it for the FA review since it is not required in my mind for GA anyway. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have the date of birth from a source it should be added to the initial sentence which lists the location of birth.
  • Her birth and death dates are listed in the main source, the NTSB report. This source is cited at the end of the first paragraph in the lead, where those dates are mentioned. Not sure what else is needed, since this is not controversial. Crum375 (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Accepted

• I may have confused you. Your source is perfectly acceptable. My proposal was to enhance the first sentence to something like "Dubroff was born on May 5, 1988, in Flamouth, Massachusetts, to Lloyd Dubroff...", however since the current article shows the birthdate so near that sentence already in the into and Aviator template it might be too redundant. I now retract my birthdate request. § Music Sorter § (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "City State" usage requires "cityname, statename," with commas after each name.
  • See above. Crum375 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved

       – Agree to disagree for now
    • See above.

• One of the paragraphs is not referenced, but it is presumed that citation 1 is the source. Making it specifically reference number 1 removes all doubt.
  •  Done - Crum375 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• These two links are articles that would be better added as citations for appropriate spots in the article. It is fine to have multiple sources providing citations on the same point which you do have in a few spots already.
  • I included these as FR intentionally. The first is a bit touchy BLP-wise (the mother and the siblings are alive), which would require more reliable sources to justify inclusion in the main article. I felt ignoring it altogether would be wrong, and that leaving it as an FR item is a reasonable compromise. The second item is an overall review page, including many different takes on the accident. I did include some of the individual articles as references elsewhere, but felt that having the overall coverage in one place would be useful to some readers, and that FR would be a good place to include that link. Crum375 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Accepted

• Your explanation makes sense for the article and I accept your current use as is. § Music Sorter § (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The NTSB report cited numerous times is very large (69 pages) and therefore the citations need page number(s) in the citation entries. See the article USAir_Flight_405 with a similar NTSB reference situation, or in the article Micro_Instrumentation_and_Telemetry_Systems.
  • I think adding dozens of page numbers to an investigative report makes the reference section very messy. Also, quite often items are not directly covered in a single page, and require a careful reading of the entire report. In my own reference article of Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907, I don't include page numbers in the final report, and it was accepted by the FA reviewers that way. Crum375 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved

       – Accepted
    • Although I disagree with not using page numbers in a reference citation that is larger than a few pages, this point is not a criteria for GA status. Clearly it is most important to ensure there is a citation, which you have, and citing a specific page number is the icing on the cake. I accept your entry as is. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see the article uses the web citation template in just about every instance except for the first one. That would explain why the formatting of the first reference is different from the others. Changing it to a web citation template would solve that. Note that their use is not required for any article, but they certainly help with consistency within articles.
  •  Done- Good point. This was caused by some leftovers from the historical stub, which I have now (hopefully) fixed. Crum375 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One web citation template uses the accessdate= variable, but I don't think any of the others do. I recommend you use it on all web citations to improve consistency in the references and improve maintence on the article for the years to come.
  • I agree in principle, but I hate seeing more than one date in the refs section unless absolutely needed, since I consider the refs section a readable part of the article and think it should be reasonably reader-friendly too. My own rule is that if the source is a reliable online news magazine of some kind, or a government site with a clear publication date (e.g. NTSB accident report), I tend to leave the access date out. I will add at least one date to any remaining undated source. Crum375 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved

       – Accepted
    • I understand your perspective. As long as the references are consistent I have no concern with your method as is.§ Music Sorter § (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The external link to amazon.com for the book Will You All Rise... appears inappropriate and violates the External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided item number 5 "links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services..." If you cite the book in the article you can put it in as a source. In general Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum.
  •  Done - I agree, so I took it out for now. Crum375 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again in the external links (which should be kept to a minimum consider adding a subsection on the songs written about Jessica and then you can list the cite as a source and not just an external link. This will make the number of links much shorter and more acceptable for the other entries.
  • I don't think there are enough there to justify a separate section for songs. I think the remaining ELs are reasonable, and I do agree with you on keeping the overall number as low as possible. Crum375 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved

       – Accepted
    • I accept your current external links. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference numbers 6, 8 & 9 are notes and are fine to include here. My concern for them is that they are very technical and introduce descriptions, meanings, and definitions without a source. If they are actually noted within the references which are cited for the paragraphs or sentences in which they are used, you may need to consider including a comment in the noted text something like "The NTSB report cited that when an airport is officially IFR (normally because of reduced visibility..." so it is clear these comments are not primary research.
  • Here again I rely on my reference FA article, which was the first commercial aviation accident article to get promoted (to my knowledge). One of the experienced reviewers asked me to add clarification footnotes for technical lingo, saying that the wiki-links alone are not friendly enough, and that such "translation" notes help non-technical readers follow the text. This relates only to generic terminology issues, not anything specific to the article, and is equivalent to foreign language quotes which we allow Wikipedians to translate, as long as the original is included and there is nothing controversial. In this case, I have added one link to the generic U.S. FARs, and left the others as they are, with wiki-links. If anyone challenges the explanations, they can either be improved, or removed. I tend to agree with the FA reviewer who suggested them, and think they help the reader, and like a foreign language quote are verifiable by including the "translation" along with the original, so any knowledgeable reader can verify their accuracy for himself. Crum375 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved

       – Accepted
    • As I originally mentioned I had no problem with them, but was only considering the concern over verifiability. If we have precedence for the same layout and style then I don't see a problem. I accept how you have them now. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 10 appears to be almost a transcription of the NTSB report and does not appear to provide anything not already in the actual NTSB report. Since you already have the actual NTSB report I don't see where this source helps the article. Additionally you have it supporting the section on Child Pilot Safety Act. I did not see anything in that source which related to this section.
  •  Done - I agree. I do want that source, since although it's very close to the primary one, it is secondary, which is always good to have. So I have moved it to the previous section in support of the primary NTSB reference there. Crum375 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your solution is fine. I did want to comment on one thing you mentioned. If you have a primary source and then you cite a secondary source which restates the primary source (as far as I could tell), the only thing I see you achieve is confirmation that one other writer or editor feels the primary source is good enough to cite. With an NTSB report I would not see the need to get confirmation. If the secondary source drew separate conclusions or made confirming statements separate of simply restating the primary source, then I do see additional value. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will reserve final notation of the GA Checklist until after the author has a chance to address the concerns.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Crum375, please note on my talk page when you believe you have addressed each of my comments one way or another and I will be happy to close this out for you. Congratulations on a great job here. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crum375, it has been a pleasure reviewing this article with you. I appreciate your comments and willingness to work through any concerns. I look forward to this article making it to FA status. Great work. I will update the related GA pages for this article shortly. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]