GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 00:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
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.
"One mile (two kilometers)" - One mile is closer to 1.5 kilometers than two kilometers.
"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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
Pinging nominator - RecycledPixels. Hog Farm ( talk) 04:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 00:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
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.
"One mile (two kilometers)" - One mile is closer to 1.5 kilometers than two kilometers.
"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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
Pinging nominator - RecycledPixels. Hog Farm ( talk) 04:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)