Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paradise Airlines Flight 901A/archive1

Add links
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 June 2023 [1].

Paradise Airlines Flight 901A

[edit]
Nominator(s): RecycledPixels (talk) 22:58, 23 May 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.

After its initial expansion, the article appeared on the WP front page's Did You Know? section? It received a GA review by The Rambling Man. Since then, I've poked around from time to time refining some of the prose, but at this point, I feel that it's ready to appear on the main page in the Featured Article slot. Do you? RecycledPixels (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Anti-icing_system.JPG needs a source for the data presented
  • File:Lockheed_Model_749A_Constellation_silhouette.jpg: on what basis is this believed to be CC-licensed? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the alt tags. I suspect the CC licensing tag was a mistake on the part of the Wikipedia Commons uploader, because they originally uploaded the image with the CC tag, then amended the image a minute later with the PD tag. I don't do much editing on Commons, so I don't know if it's appropriate to just assume it was a mistake and remove the CC tag, leaving the PD tag or not, so I haven't done anything about it. The original uploader hasn't been active on commons since 2021. Looking for clarification about the source of the icing diagram; are you just looking for a source that would state that the leading edges of the wings have anti-icing systems on it, or are you looking for something specific to this image? RecycledPixels (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A source that could be used to confirm the accuracy of the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When looking up the reference, I actually came across a picture that better depicts what I was trying to show with the photo, so I replaced the photo altogether, and added the reference. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet

[edit]

Glanced over this article a couple of times while it was hanging around FAC, and noticed it's had very little attention so far. Saving a header to review soon. Vaticidalprophet 00:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
[edit]
  • "An investigation concluded that the primary cause of the accident was the pilot's decision to attempt a visual landing approach in adverse weather": This is a very bloodless description. Can you describe the weather conditions more in-depth? The body of the article discusses clouds and snow, but never quite gets to a portrait clear to a general reader of what things actually looked like that day until the aftermath. ("Snow showers" and "heavy snowfall" don't sound the same to a general/non-technical reader.)
    I have reworded that section. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The airline involved, Paradise Airlines" is a pleonasm. You also have Paradise redlinked thrice. Redlinks are good to call out when there might be a notable nonexistent article, but because they don't lead to extant articles yet, they don't have the navigation benefit of links that justifies using them multiple times. Do you expect this to be bluelinked soon? Otherwise, it's probably worth dropping them to just the one here.
    I have slightly reworded that section and have removed the link in the lead, but I think it should be linked per WP:REPEATLINK. This issue has come up in another FAC in the past, see comments by Gerald Waldo Luis at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pan_Am_Flight_7/archive1, in about the middle of the collapsed section.
  • The intrastate airline concept isn't introduced until relatively far in the article. An airline doing 100% of its business on such a short route sounds unusual from a modern perspective, so it might be worth clarifying earlier why these were a thing.
    I agree, and it's even more interesting than that. At the time, the airline industry was highly regulated, with the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) dictating how many flights there would be within a certain period of time between two locations, which airline would fly them, and how much each seat would cost. If an airline wanted to add service to an additional destination, they had to ask the CAB for permission, and asking them for permission was a years-long process for the CAB to give an answer. It was very difficult for a new company to enter a market because competitive pricing for seats in order to build up traffic was nonexistent. The exception to the CAB's rule was that it was only able to regulate airlines that engaged in at least some interstate commerce, leaving a hole for airlines that solely flew within one state. California was large enough that some intrastate airlines were able to thrive between Northern and Southern California, but Paradise Airlines established routes between the San Francisco Bay area and South Lake Tahoe, California. By the letter of the rule, the flights were entirely within the State of California, but the CAB argued that since a vast majority of the passengers on the flight were actually bound for the Nevada casinos just across the border, the flights were actually interstate flights because it the passengers' intended destination was in another state. At the time of this accident, it was looking like the CAB was about to win this battle, but the crash and the FAA shutdown made the matter moot. It's an interesting story worth diving into further, but it belongs in the article about the airline, not this accident. The only real mention I have of the issue was when Paradise Airlines tried to use the "you can't regulate me, we're an intrastate airline" line with the FAA, which failed. I didn't mention any of the other squabbles with the CAB since they were not a factor in this crash. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely understandable why you wouldn't go in all the depth in this article -- it does sound due to me to just have a short mention in the lead about intrastate airlines being common at the time, though. Nothing that'll hold things up, but as someone who isn't especially a plane-aficiando, that did stand out to me as unusual and not something I had context for. (I did really enjoy this elaboration!) Vaticidalprophet 01:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Vaticidalprophet 08:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accident
[edit]
  • "Other witnesses heard a low flying plane" -- this seems a little more readable as "low-flying", I think (minor point).
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole witness-reports paragraph seems WP:PROSELINE-y. This may be difficult to avoid. However, it does result in a lot of uncontextualized different 'witnesses' being mentioned and the reader trying to keep track of them. Is it necessary that all of these reports specifically open by mentioning that they were made by different witnesses, as opposed to opening with something like "various witness reports around the time of the crash" and assuming the reader can follow along from there?
    I've taken a stab at rewriting that paragraph. I think what I was aiming for when I wrote it that way was that investigators had to work with witnesses who each saw just a snippet of the last minutes of the flight; nobody saw the whole think. But I agree that that type of detail is just distracting and not essential to the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the time was the second worst single-plane accident in United States history" -- do we have an article to link here on what the then-worst was?
    I've linked it. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath and grounding
[edit]
  • "A second helicopter landed at the site and confirmed that the wreckage was from the missing flight and that there were no survivors" is a run-on sentence.
    I've split it into two. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the days following the suspension, he also said that he believed that the FAA's "over-restrictive rules" about flying in adverse weather conditions was to blame for the accident" (wow, that takes cojones). Is 'also' necessary here? It's a little bit of a pleonasm, and you can get across the same idea if necessary by simplifying 'also said' to 'added'.
    Done. And I agree about the attitude. I've tried researching what happened to the owner after the airline went under but haven't had a lot of success. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last paragraph is incredibly long, and has a natural splitting point around "In a later part of the hearing". Keep in mind the majority of Wikipedia's readers navigate on phones -- I opened this on mobile and had a hard time getting through the wall of text. Even on my laptop, it's a big block of text.
    Split.

That should be all my comments -- there wasn't anything that stood out to me in the later sections. This was a fascinating article -- a gripping story with no details spared about the mismanagement of the airline. I'm looking forward to supporting. Vaticidalprophet 01:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, I think I've taken care of all the issues you brought up, let me know if you see anything else. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Happy to support this excellent article for promotion. Vaticidalprophet 05:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Review to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • This might be standard practice for articles about specific flights (I'm honestly not sure), but a link that displays "San Jose, California" but links to an article about a specific airport, even in the clear context of a flight, still seems a bit EGG-y to me; IMO this would be better just naming the airport instead of the city or giving both.
    I've changed it to the names of the airports. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accident

  • Same note as above with "San Jose" and "Lake Tahoe"
    I've changed it to the names of the airports. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "PST" to Pacific Time Zone at first mention
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "predicted poor flight conditions for aircraft" → this reads as being a little redundant; is there anything other than aircraft that would be using the flight conditions?
    I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the weather service predicts the weather, not necessarily the flight conditions. The dispatcher decides whether or not that weather would allow flights. I've reworded that sentence to make it less confusing. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "near the crest of a ridge on Genoa Peak, Nevada" → reads more naturally as "on Genoa Peak in Nevada"
    It wasn't really at the peak, so I reworded it to "struck the ground at the crest of a ridge near Genoa Peak, Nevada". Sound better? RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aircraft was flying almost level at the time" → this doesn't necessarily require a change, but just for my comprehension: does "level" here mean "parallel to the ground"?
    Not necessarily the ground, since it was a mountainous area and the ground was sloping upward at the point of impact, but more maintaining a certain altitude, not climbing or descending. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Airline grounded

  • "FAA regional Director Joseph Tippets" → if "Regional Director" is his title, both words should be capitalized in this case
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That argument proved unpersuasive, and once the hearing commenced, attention was first focused on the company dispatcher that had approved the flight despite the poor weather conditions" → I don't think either of these commas are necessary
    I've rephrased it to make it less of a jumble. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "limited fluency" seems like an oxymoron; is there a better way to describe this?
    That was the phrase used in the source. It's never really clear how bad his English was. Could he understand well but not communicate well? Or the other way around? Was it just a heavy accent? I've tried to clean it up by rephrasing it as but I've reworded it to "He was not very fluent with the English language" to eliminate the "limited fluency" oxymoron and not drift into speculation and original research. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had written in a minus sign" → this may not be totally necessary but I think linking minus sign could be helpful since it's a visual symbol
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft

Passengers and crew

Investigation

  • Does George R. Baker have a title or any position of consequence, or is he just important because he was the guy that headed the CAB investigation?
    No, he's just a guy. I think an earlier draft that I had of this article attributed a quote to him, which is why I named him, but that no longer seems to exist, so I've taken his name out of the article. He is not the same person as George P. Baker (dean of Harvard Business School) who also worked for the CAB, but there could be a relation (just a guess on my part). RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between June 2 and 5" → I think this is better as "from June 2 to 5" or "from June 2–5"
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments above, I'll take another read-through once these are addressed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS, thank you for the suggestions. Take a look at the changes and see if you have any other suggestions or need further clarifications. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for over four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am sorry, but this one has timed out and I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Paradise_Airlines_Flight_901A/archive1&oldid=1162258005"