Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Airlines Flight 77

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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:49, 24 June 2008 [1].

American Airlines Flight 77[edit]

Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has recently been expanded with new sources, new information, and more comprehensively. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
  • I don't think you're going to provide us with cheery articles, VegitaU. I think your next FAC should be about that cat that is a train stationmaster in Japan. It has its own little hat. I laughed at that article...
  • One of your sentences starts with 125. You'll have to spell it out or restructure the sentence.
  • I had to read this sentence several times, and I'm still not sure what it's saying By 17:30 on September 11, Army engineers determined that no one remained alive in the building
  • You'll have to change The Pentagon Memorial is currently being constructed in memory of those who lost their lives both at the Pentagon and aboard American Airlines Flight 77 to "as of 2008" instead of "currently".
  • This article includes a very brief mention of the conspiracy theories. What's your view on the material in the article? It seems very short for the mention, but I understand if you don't want to lend credence to ideas that are not based on sound evidence.
  • Cats with tiny hats next time. --Moni3 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I've made the changes you requested. Please let me know if they make sense or if you would like me to reword in a different manner. As for conspiracy theories, I've seen two ways of handling it. One way, like Apollo 11, only has a link in the "See also" section to the hoax article. Another way, like the John F. Kennedy assassination, has a paragraph briefly skimming the allegations. When I started editing the article, I didn't want to take a huge eraser to what was already there—the paragraph. Since Flight 77, like United Airlines Flight 93, is a major point to conspiracy theorists, I'm willing to leave a small paragraph linking to the main article on conspiracy theories. I'm open to suggestions, however.
  • And if I see that cat curling up on bin Laden's lap, I may consider expanding it. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Ok. I've italicized the sources. There should be clear instructions for when to use work and when to use publisher in citations. And the Riskus thing that linked to the Scoop is gone. I tracked it down to the State Department page, but it looks like the State Department is also using iffy sources of information (a GeoCities site and a broken link). Forgot to sign for some reason. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you drop the Scoop reference? And, yes, I agree, it's hard to understand the templates sometimes...
Yes, i dropped it completely. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose Looks good.
All issues resolved — Bellhalla (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "Hijackers" section there are seven men named without clear explanation who the two extra men are. Further, In the second paragraph, the clear implication is that Ahmed al-Ghamdi is one of the "muscle" hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77 (AA 77), but according to his WP article, he was instead on UAL 175. Then, in the third paragraph, Salem al-Hazmi and Abdulaziz al-Omari, are mentioned without any indication as to how they fit into AA 77. Again using WP articles as a quick check, Salem al-Hazmi is one of the AA 77 "muscle" hijackers while Abdulaziz al-Omari is listed as an AA 11 hijacker. In my view, this is a major flaw in the article.
    • In section "Crash": "…right wing hit a portable generator before impact." Is the impact the plane hitting the ground? It reads to me like the wing hit the generator before the wing impacted
    • Same section: "…which was 4,000 less than before…" you need fewer rather than less here. (People are discrete units and, hence, countable.)
    • As a newspaper name, USA Today in the "Crash" section should be in italics.
    • "Almost all the successful rescue of survivors occurred within…" do you mean rescues?
    • "The flight data recorder was found nearly 300 feet (91 m) into the building,[69] and the cockpit voice recorder was too badly damaged and burned to retrieve any information." These two thoughts seem a strange conjunction. Perhaps two seperate sentences?
    • Notes 1, 4, 9, and others, show a shortcoming of {{cite news}}. If the first or author parameter ends with an initial, the period should be omitted from the parameter; otherwise a double period appears (the one from the parameter plus the automatic one generated by the template.)
    • Note 5 needs some work. "The Attack Looms" is a chapter/part of the larger work, The 9/11 Commission Report. In note 5 and other notes, the name of the commission itself as author should not be in italics.
    • Note 7 is missing a publisher.
    • In note 14 and others, CNN should not be in italics.
    • In note 17 and others, per WP:TRADEMARK (and the specific example of the magazine's name) use Time, not TIME or TIME magazine.
    • It looks like notes 18 and 24 are citing the same source. If so, please combine. Also, the court name should not be in italics.
    • In note 21 and others, National Transportation Safety Board should not be in italics.
    • In note 32 and others, television stations should not be italicized.
    • In note 34, there is no publisher and no location of publication.
    • In note 37 and many others: Shouldn't the notes be "Goldberg et al., p. n" rather than "Pentagon 9/11, p. n"?
    • In note 41, National Geographic Society should not be italicized.
    • In note 44, United States Army should not be italicized. Also, it is a press release and should be noted as such.
    • In note 47, As a news agency, Gannett News Service should not be italicized. Also, in what newspaper or other news outlet did this story appear?
    • In note 48, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division should not be in italics
    • In note 52, it should be noted that this is a transcript of a broadcast. Also, as noted previously, CNN should not be in italics.
    • In note 58, Arlington County Fire Department should not be in italics.
    • In note 64, The publisher should be "Foxnews.com" (or "Fox News") rather than "Fox News Channel" (which implies it's a video, rather than print, source)
    • In note 69, American Society of Civil Engineers should not be in italics. Also, the ASCE seems to be a publisher. The authors are listed on page 3 of the pdf linked.
      • Struck because the reference is no longer used(?) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In note 73, Associated Press should not be italicized. In this case, they should probably be listed as the author.
    • {{cite press release}} for notes 74 and 76 is missing the "publisher" parameter.
    • In note 81 (minor), with all of the other newspapers, magazines, websites, etc., that are linked in the notes, why no link for Popular Mechanics?
(A spot check shows that many of the italicized names in the notes are incorrectly listed in the "work" parameter when they should be in the "publisher" parameter.)

— Bellhalla (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thanks for the thorough review. I have fixed everything point you mentioned as well some some other oddities I found. I guess I'm still not too familiar with the citation templates to know when publisher or work should be used. I changed everything to work based on a review above and that's what resulted in most of the mess-ups. Please let me know if there's anything else you have questions about. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first look at the article after the recent changes, and this is just a brief look. Here are some points to address:

  • In the prose, I see a number of spots with awkward wording (e.g. "believed to have", "it is possible", ...).
  • I fixed some of this, but a lot comes directly from the 9/11 commission report itself. If the commission says 'it is possible', I can't very well speculate that 'he definitely did' whatever. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a section on rebuilding the Pentagon and construction of the Pentagon memorials.
  • This isn't the article on the Pentagon. Like Flight 11 and 175 shouldn't have a section on rebuilding the trade center. It's just about the flight and the flight ended with the crash, recovery of bodies and equipment. Add detail about the memorial on the memorial article. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pentagon article needs to cover 60+ years of history, from construction, Vietnam War, renovations, 9/11, and other aspects. Per summary style, this article is the place to go into more depth about what happened at the Pentagon as the result of the Flight 77 crash. It certainly is appropriate and necessary to include some discussion of reconstructing the Pentagon and the memorials, more than just the passing mention that is in the article now. We don't need excessive detail either, and we can link to the Pentagon Memorial and the Pentagon Renovation Program articles for further information. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The collapse time (10:15) is good, with a good source. A number of other sources out there get it wrong.
  • For the witnesses, the article should mention about Steve Riskus as a witness, with his camera, taking some of the first photographs.
  • I deleted the Riskus thing because I couldn't find a rock-solid source for it. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's more difficult to source because he self-published his pictures on his website. Many sources are more anecdotal, though one of his pictures is included the ASCE report [2], the 9/11 Digital Archive [3], and Popular Mechanics mentions him. There may be other sources, which I will look for. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the aircraft debris found?
  • I think that information about the debris belongs in the recovery section. Firefighters and others in the Pentagon (evacuating or during rescue/recovery) found not only the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, but I know they found things like airplane seats. Some even contained victims. I'm quite sure Rick Newman mentions these details, though not sure the page number. I can try to address this, though I'm on wikibreak for the month or so and can't promise lots of time to work on the article now. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right about that. Even I didn't know about Nawaf's ID. Added. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there is some legit material on Youtube - that's where Judicial Watch and Scott Bingham posted the videos obtained from FOIA. This a case where I think such links are okay. This animation [4] is also legit, posted to YouTube by the copyright owner. Purdue University also did some simulation and modeling of the crash and subsequent fires, and produced some animations.
  • I'll have to wait for some definite consensus opinion to add a youtube link. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These links can be included on a case-by-case basis. See WP:EL. What I mention are all legitimate YouTube video links. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was Donald Rumsfeld doing? I know his office was on the other side of the Pentagon and not in proximity to the crash area. I also know that he came outside soon after the crash to help out, but then realize he was needed elsewhere.
  • I think more could be done with this. The fact that he came out to help, I think help load some victims onto stretchers probably could go in a different section than talking about the casualties. That he left his office meant that he wasn't right there to speak with other government officials (e.g. the Vice President), though I know his deputy was there and handled that. Then, what about further response on an official level to keep the DOD operating? He could have gone to Site R (a backup site), but I think they sent Paul Wolfowitz. With Rumsfield's personality (known as stubborn), he insisted the Pentagon keep operating. The National Military Command Center continued to operate, even with smoke coming in. In the rest of the building, the power mostly stayed on. Rumsfeld had people come to work the next day at the Pentagon. I know that Steve Vogel talks quite a bit about this in his book. Again, I will try to address this, but can't promise much time right now to work on it. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had added something about this in May [5] with a link to the NPR interview with Rick Newman and Patrick Creed. This could be readded (with the NPR reference which people might like to hear) and expanded upon. Don't need to go into excessive detail, but something should be said about how the DOD responded through the ordeal. --Aude (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sources, there are some other offline sources that I think are worth consulting for this article to make it more comprehensive. These include The Pentagon by Steve Vogel was published in 2007. It is more broad than 9/11, but talks a bit about 9/11 and rebuilding the section of the building. Another is Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon On 9/11, which is recently out, though it may duplicate much of the information covered in Pentagon 9/11. I think these kind of sources add depth to articles and help improve article quality.
  • I think the article is pretty comprehensive. If you have these sources on hand, please feel free to add whatever information you believe I may have left out. I'm not going to go and buy these books, however. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments above. These kind of sources help piece together the bits and facts from news articles, and provide added depth. I will do what I can, but have limited time for Wikipedia at the moment while on wikibreak. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The see also link needs to go. Instead, there could be see also links to the other three flights hijacked.

That's all I see after a brief skim through the page. It's late for me, so I can't do more detailed review or editing now. I should have more time tomorrow to review and edit. --Aude (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address your further points later. I don't have much time right now. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Addressed every point to the best of my knowledge. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • Something else that is lacking is discussion of how the Pentagon structure held up to the crash. The fact that this section was recently renovated, with reinforced concrete, blast-resistant windows, ... and the nature of the structure compared to the twin towers is something to address in the article. The ASCE report is a good source for this.
  • The section about the hijackers... Something should be added about how these five hijackers worked together largely separate (in San Diego and Arizona) from all the others. And, that Hani Hanjour was not part of the Hamburg Cell.

That's all for now. I will be back for more review and try to make time to help address points myself. --Aude (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: Sorry about that. I've made some changes regarding these issues. I try to put non-breaking spaces when I remember, but oftentimes I forget completely. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a real mess (not your fault :-) in capitalization of The Pentagon; I spent a while looking at it, and I'm not clear if our article is correct. Is it The Pentagon or the Pentagon? Should our article be at Pentagon (building)? Can you track down which is correct? It's inconsistent in the article. Also, pls ping to see if Aude plans to revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per their website, it seems to be "the Pentagon". -- VegitaU (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/American_Airlines_Flight_77&oldid=1126593056"