Talk:2009 Hudson River mid-air collision/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

B-class

I have reassessed the article as B-class, based on the criteria. It is well-sourced, neutral, and relatively complete. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 16:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Details from Internet buzz

According to specialty forums, the aircraft are N71MC, a Piper Cherokee Lance (AKA Piper PA-32R-300, a Piper Saratoga variant) registered in Port Washington, PA and N45xAE (the third number being unknown ATM), a Eurocopter EC130-B4 Ecureuil. Circeus (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Last night, video of the crash became available. The video shows what happened, but doesn't really add much to the discussion, except that the video was shot by the friends of the Italians killed in the chopper.Jeffutz (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

PD Images

Not sure if any Public Domain images from the US Coast Guard could help this article, but I found a few if needed.

-Marcusmax(speak) 00:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Added two of your pics, thanks a lot Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverted inaccuracies

My edit about the elevation and the timeline was reverted without comment here. These were material corrections to inaccuracies in the article. The 1,000 vs. 1,100 issue is important in whether air traffic controllers should have been involved. The info on handoff between Teteboro and Newark was also significant. Americasroof (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I regret giving no comment for this, but after discussion with Americasroof on my talk page, I decided to put the information back, but I still refrained from putting the 1100 feet correction back in. The sources that mention both figures are conflicting. If anyone knows an official source for the statistic, please feel free to edit 1000 and change it to 1100. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the most recent NTSB report from 8-14-09 says 1,100', I think that is the most definitive reference. I have changed it back to 1,100'. Seanfranklin (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a newspaper

How does this article pass WP:NOT? It's newsworthy for two news cycles, but make the case that it is belongs in an encylopedia. patsw (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. While this is not part of WP Aircraft, the guidelines there I think are reasonable (see WP:Air/PC#Accidents_and_incidents. Unless and until this accident "result[s] in changes to procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)" it is not notable enough to warrant an article. Seanfranklin (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Crash information

I have worked on this section, because it was confusing, and left out important information inferring that this was the Piper's fault (NPOV problem). I am a licensed private pilot, and owned the same model plane, and flew the corridor many times in the old days. Familiarity with procedures is important to the proper understanding of what took place initially, and so far at least, blame cannot be assigned to either of the unfortunate crash participants. A look at this site will perhaps be helpful. Professional Pilots Rumor Network JohnClarknew (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

GA-nomination

I might be trying to push this article too quickly to GA-status, so please stop me if that is the case.

I think that this article has the qualities of a good article:

1. It is generally well-written, and complies with MoS as far as I can see.
2. It is factually accurate and has multiple sources (21 right now), all of which are credible news articles and documents by credible sources (e.g. NY Times, CNN, US Supreme Court).
3. It is broad and covers all aspects of the event without excessive detail, and has info about the crash, recovery, investigation, and aftermath.
4. It adheres to NPOV, and any statements that might possibly be considered points of view are all reliably sourced.
5. There is no edit war and the article is stable. As far as I can tell, all of the edits in the past few days have been constructive or simply fixing errors.
6. Though there are only two images, both are free US Coast Guard pictures, and if needed, there are additional pictures available.

Should we nominate, or hold off on it for some time? Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 13:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

After privately consulting other editors, I have nominated it for GA-status.

Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Hudson River collision of aircraft.jpg

What is this crap? I understand what it is but obviously it's terrible cropped and of every low quality. I don't think it adds much to this article. Any other thoughts? --Kuzwa (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

NTSB report of August 14

The report was issued today, and since it clears up much of the speculation in specific factual terms, I have printed the full text in the article. Adjustments or deletion may be necessary in some duplicated parts of the story previously written. JohnClarknew (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that the report should referenced, relevant parts of the report be incorporated into the article and the report itself should be removed from the article. I also noticed the parts about the air traffic controllers being removed from duty are missing as it most of reference nytimes2. - Jeff Jeffutz (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to try this, but huge job, because trying to explain the report in every detail with the multiple necessary references would be IMO extremely time consuming and ultimately unsatisfactory. As for removing the reference to the TEB controller on the phone to his girlfriend, the report shows that there were in fact 2 controllers on the job right up to the moment of the collision, which creates a conflict with the previous report which said there was only one. Better at this point anyway to leave it out. See what develops. JohnClarknew (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The report doesn't need to be explained in every detail. Those who want every detail can read the report itself. Regardless, the text of the report should not be part of the article.Jeffutz (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A skimpy summary has replaced the report itself. OK, but I have provided a link to the report, which was missing. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt

This article doesn't stand a chance to become a GA in it's current state. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, not all the investigations have been completed, much less a final decision on whether the aircraft access rules for the Hudson corridor are going to be changed as a consequence of this . patsw (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)