Talk:American Airlines Flight 587/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 03:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article, and hope that we can get it to GA status. Giving it a quick once-over makes it look like the article is already in pretty good shape. I didn't recognize the accident by the flight number alone, but it jogged my memory when I began reading the article. I distinctly remember being at my elementary school for a Veterans Day event and watching the newscast, and thinking it was another attack shortly after 9/11. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: Thanks for taking this review. I remember that day. I remember the newscast and the feeling like we were being attacked again. Sad day. Thank you again. AmericanAir88(talk) 21:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review template[edit]

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Lead
    I would either use "Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic" or "Santo Domingo, the capital of the Dominican Republic" to clean up the grammar in the first sentence. My vote is for the former, as I don't think the capital portion is necessary to describe, but that's a style choice on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Accident
    State which company the aircraft was delivered to (I'm assuming American Airlines). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified #N14053 was delivered new to American Airlines on July 12, 1988.[1]  Spintendo  10:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Date of aircraft delivery" (PDF). AAL#587 AAR. NTSB (Report). p. 14 (pdf p.28).
  1. I would move "On the day of the accident" to the beginning of the sentence, and then describe the configuration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Insert "(JAL)" behind your first use of Japanese Airlines to indicate that it is the acronym/shorthand for the airline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have timings to include for the JAL flight (when it took off, when the controllers we cautioned)? I know you state the takeoffs are separated by roughly 1:40, but since much of the report focuses on by-the-second times, I think it is appropriate to include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Make the tense consistent when describing the takeoff. It should say "and left the runway at 9:14:29" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would change "From takeoff" to "After takeoff" as you are describing a sequence of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't the mean sea level acronym be capitalized? That is how I'm used to seeing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From "just in" and have the sentence state "the JAL flight in front of it" as "just in" is a subjective measure of distance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly unfamiliar with the parts describing the attachment of the stabilizer and rudder, but is lug the appropriate term? The only use of the word I can think of is lug nuts on wheels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified The correct name for this component is a main attachment lug which actually consists of two parts: the part of the fitting through which a pin passes to fasten mating parts, which is the lughole — and the area that immediately surrounds the lughole, which is the lug portion of the fitting.[1]  Spintendo  07:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Figure 5: Main Attachment Lug" (PDF). AAL#587 AAR. NTSB (Report). p. 17 (pdf p.31).
  1. I would rewrite the first sentence of the third paragraph, as it comes across slightly editorialized. I would remove "At the moment" and just state the the aircraft pitched downward after the svertical stabilizer detached. Additionally, I would remove the part about heading straight for Belle Harbor, because that seems to imply (at least in my mind) that it was flying consistently toward it, and not chaotically crashing out of the sky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Was anyone/anything damaged from the separate engine impacts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified The left engine caused minor damage at the location where it was recovered, a gas station located at 441 Beach 129th Street[1] about 800 feet north-northeast from the main wreckage area. The right engine was recovered partially embedded within a home and driveway at 414 Beach 128th Street,[1] where the home and a boat parked in the home's driveway received severe damage. This was about 800 feet northeast of the main wreckage area.[2]  Spintendo  10:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Address of engine impact locations" (PDF). AAL#587 AAR. NTSB (Report). p. 50 (pdf p.64).
  2. ^ "Engine impact - additional information" (PDF). AAL#587 AAR. NTSB (Report). p. 9 (pdf p.23).
  1. Investigation
    Initial terrorism concerns
    I never realized how serious the terrorism concerns were. From my memory (as an 11-year-old) I remember the newscasters talking about the possibility of terrorism immediately after the crash, but don't recall further widespread belief that it was terrorism (I would like to reiterate that I was 11, and terrorism concerns in New York City weren't at the forefront of my mind). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reword the paraphrasing from Ted Lopatkiewicz. My personal opinion is to remove any direct quotation and just state that the memos claim was lessened by, and state the evidence. If you would like to keep the quotes, at least reword "ultimately evaporates" as that is a colloquialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I want the description of Jdey using his passport to stay consistent with the wording used by the Canadian memo, but if possible, make sure that the tense stays consistent with when the investigation took place. As the memo was from 6 months after the fact, it should state that Jdey "used his Canadian passport" as the action was already completed (according to the memo; it didn't play out that way) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified The Jdey memo was written in May 2002, but the statements repeated in the memo allegedly pertained to a time ostensibly before the accident occurred, so the phrase "was to use" would be correct in that context.  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. NTSB investigation
    The section starts off with an immediate retelling of events. As this is about the NTSB investigation, I would preface it with that the NTSB found this information. I would combine the sub-sub sections into the overal NTSB investigation section. You have multiple times that you describe the First Officer's excessive rudder inputs, and I think that should be collected into one area in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @AmericanAir88: Sorry if I was unclear on this guidance, but my intent wasn't met. My point is that in the start of the NTSB investigation section, it immediately jumps into a retelling of events, with no preface about this was the NTSB's finding. I think the section should start with (something to the effect of, I don't know the details): "On the afternoon of the crash, the NTSB launched an investigation into its causes. Over the next 3 months they conducted 349 interviews, and collected and reconstructed the 15,000 (no idea on the actual number) pieces of the aircraft." The information they found (about the 747, jet wake, etc.) should be in the Finding section (I know I had given guidance to remove the Finding section entirely, but I think moving all of the findings info to it could justify a separate sub-section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 01:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Balon Greyjoy: I updated the beginning but fail to see the reason of removing the recount of events. The "findings" section is reactionary to the crash description. Could you please be more clearly on what you want me to do? Thank you. AmericanAir88(talk) 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "was a cause of concern because they are used" I would change "because" to "as"  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rewrite the contributing factors sentence, and break it up into several sentences. Personal choice, but I don't like the mid-sentence colon to begin listing factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Query It's unclear what is requested here. Could you rephrase what changes you'd like to be made? Thanks  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spintendo, I fixed the issue. The user wanted a re-write and I agree with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you  Spintendo  23:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Victims
    Were any other types of pets killed on the ground? I noted the comments on the Talk page about the inclusion of the dogs as they were part of the accident report. My opinion to leave dogs out of the list of victims, or at least have them in a separate sentence, as I don't think they merit the same attention as people who were killed. But I understand that people disagree with me on this point, and don't think including the dogs invalidates the quality of this article/section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified Only two dogs were killed—one had been placed in a transport approved kennel and was flying as part of American's parcel service cargo transport, while the second dog was on the ground. No other domesticated animals were carried on the aircraft and no additional domesticated animals were known to have been killed or injured on the ground beyond the first 'ground' dog.  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I would combine the first and third sentences of the seconds paragraph. Additionally, is there a better word than "relatives," as I'm sure some people friends meeting them at the airport. My take is "Friends and family of the passengers, some of whom were unaware of the crash, gathered at Las Américas International Airport." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've changed relatives but was unsure which sentences you wanted to combine. Please clarify.  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still managed to make the edit I was hoping for, even if I wasn't clear! My point was that the sections started out by just saying relatives gathered at the destination airport. It was a short sentence, and it's context wasn't very clear. Were they gathering because they were unaware of the crash, or in an act of solidarity with one another. It became clear later that it was the former, and I felt that it was best to lead with that, vs. having ambiguity initially. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I would remove the reference to "Heartbreak Hotel" and just that that the JFK Ramada Plaza had previously been used to house airplane victims. I think stating that it "became known" is a bit of an overstatement, as it may have been referred to as such by new agencies shortly after the crash, but it's not a universally recognized nickname for that hotel alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I would streamline the beginning of the baseball players sentences. My take is "Some early reports erroneously..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Remove "it turned out" and just state that "but Soriano was booked for a flight a few days later" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Make the description about Enrique Wilson a separate sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Change "12 Nov" to "November 12" to be consistent with the rest of the date naming throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    No major issues. I put any comments in the previous section.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Standardize the date formats on all of your citations. There are a few examples (Buster Olney, the Allied Pilots Assosciation, and Kleinfield) of using the yyyy-mm-dd format, where the rest of your citations use the month name dd, yyy format.  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 23:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Add more information about the Stewart Bell reference.  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 23:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never seen the {{IMDb title}} template before. I like it.
    Glad to see someone else using the {{rp}} format to specify pages from a book.
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    No concern. I'm glad that the History Channel and Discovery Channel are only cited to reference the airing of the show, and not used as reference material about the crash.
    C. It contains no original research:
    There aren't any citations for the second half of the second paragraph under the "Accident" section.  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 23:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is only one for the second paragraph under NTSB investigation, and no citations for the testing of composite materials.  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 04:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There aren't any citations for the second half of the first paragraph under "Findings"  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 01:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No concern. Earwig lists a large amount of copied text, but it almost entirely quotes used in the article.
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    No concern.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    No concern.
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No concern.
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    The content of the article isn't likely to change, as (to the best of my knowledge) there are any pending future updates to the situation/reporting about the crash. It appears to have some back-and-forth on the inclusion of flags between Andrewgprout and Spintendo, but it is civil and no cause for concern. Looking at the discussion and my interpretation of of WP:MOSFLAG, my personal opinion is for the inclusion of flags.
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    No concern.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Thoughts on changing the caption slight to explain the inaccurate time on the picture about to take off? To someone unfamiliar with Daylight Savings Time, I think "it had not been adjusted for Standard Time" could be a little confusing.  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any other pictures of the memorial available? The current one doesn't show the entire wall, and is pretty dark. Also, I would change the caption to something more descriptive than "Memorial."  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a huge fan of the new picture, but it's definitely an improvement over the previous one. But, you work with what you have! The caption is much better. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Shorten the caption of the picture with the vertical stabilizer. Just use "NTSB" and don't use the entire name of the organization, as the acronym is spelled out in the lead section.  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I have completed my initial review, and am placing the review on hold. You have done a good job with this article; the only issues that I see are lack of citations in certain parts and a reorganization of the NTSB investigation sub-section. Please let me know if you have any questions. Just a heads up, I will be out of contact January 19-22; great if we can get this review wrapped up by then, but no concern if we need to put anything on hold until afterwards. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: No rush, but I'm ready to pass the article if you or someone else can get the final citation comments done. I know you have vacation coming up, so I'll hold off on expecting changes until the end of the month. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: I will finish the citation edits very soon. This review should be finished before I go away. No need to hold off. I’ll get to it soon. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that no one feels rushed to meet vacation deadlines. The GA review can wait if need be. There is still quite a bit of missing references here, as well as other areas which should be addressed. Those include:
  1. The article spends an entire paragraph discussing concerns over delamination of the vertical stabilizer. It describes in depth what theories thought about the possibility of the composite material not being strong enough. Then at the end of the paragraph, it states how it turns out that the composite material was strong enough all along. Does the article really need this diversion?
  2. Another paragraph discusses the many witnesses who claimed seeing the aircraft on fire as it dove towards the ground. The article then states that those eyewitnesses were incorrect. So why is this being repeated?
  3. The engines caused minor damage to a gas station and major damage to one home and a boat — not to "homes (plural) and a gas station".  Done AmericanAir88(talk) 22:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The claim that American Airlines never explained to crew members on the dangers of heavy use on the rudder, leading the first officer likely to not understand the aircraft's response to full rudder at high airspeeds or the mechanism by which the rudder rolls a transport-category airplane. I have no clue where this claim is coming from, it's not cited. It's essentially saying the co-pilot doesn't know how to use the rudder — only problem is he did know how to use it, it was just used excessively. American did explain the problems with rudder usage, but the main issue was that they taught using the rudder for wake turbulence recovery, which should not have been done. Did anyone have any ideas or concerns with what to do with these areas, please advise. Thanks!  Spintendo  15:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Spintendo: Thanks for providing a second look. I was only picking up on the uncited information; it's good to have someone else checking the article for other issues. I hope it didn't come across as I was rushing the review; I meant it as more that I wouldn't be enforcing a hard 7-day deadline for the article to either pass or fail, regardless of the circumstances. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spintendo: and @Balon Greyjoy:,

I am writing this from the airport and will probably not be active until tomorrow or Saturday. Ill keep updating you. Thank you AmericanAir88(talk) 22:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

@Balon Greyjoy: and @Spintendo:,

I am back from my vacation and I am all done with all changes you needed me to address. AmericanAir88(talk) 04:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spintendo: I feel that the article is ready for GA status. I disagree with your comment that there shouldn't be information about the incorrect theory of the delamination of the vertical stabilizer; I don't think including that info detracts from the article. As you were heavily involved in critiquing and editing this article, do you have any issues to address with the article as it stands? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I gave the impression that the delamination issue should not be mentioned then I apologize. I just felt that an entire paragraph on the issue may have been unwarranted. The delamination issue, while pertinent for investigators to address, was always a red herring. The tests done by the NTSB and Airbus did show translaminar fractures and delaminations of the lug in question, but tests showed that the delaminations alone did not contribute to any weakening of the lug, and that it was aerodynamic loads which caused the lug to fracture with the delamination not being a factor. The report states:

The accident lug and the tested lugs fractured because of a tensile static overload. The physical evidence and the structural analyses showed that the accident lug’s and the tested lugs’ fracture features were consistent with a cleavage-tension failure observed in composite-bolted joints. The structural analyses also indicated that, after the right rear main attachment lug fractured, all of the remaining lugs fractured sequentially. The fracture of the right rear main attachment lug initiated a nearly instantaneous separation of the vertical stabilizer from the aft fuselage.[1]

So in other words, delamination is a possible effect of using composite-bonded materials, but that delamination in this case wasn't a factor — as aerodynamic loading initiated the failure of the lug. I just questioned needing a full paragraph to state this. But then again, the Jdey issue, another red herring, itself gets its own paragraph, so perhaps the length shouldn't be an issue here either. Beyond that I don't have any other concerns, and I think everyone here has done a great job. Thanks!  Spintendo  15:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: Awaiting more notification. Take your time if you spot any more issues. AmericanAir88(talk) 18:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Summary of Structural Analyses and Tests" (PDF). AAL#587 AAR. NTSB (Report). pp. 69-70 (pdf pp.83-84).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_587/GA1&oldid=1070311236"