*Oppose no citation is provided for the eye-catching claim that "There have been 508 aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities" - how do we know that this article is actually comprehensive? The inclusion criteria seem somewhat unclear as well: why are the various disasters which overcame aircraft fleets in World War II not included? (leaving aside the operations which suffered heavy casualties from enemy action, there were several incidents in which multiple heavy bombers collided in-flight while trying to land in bad weather over the UK). Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a note following the figures stating that it is based on a statistical summery (i.e., addition) of the data in the article's main table. If you can provide details of other occurrences which meet the criteria in the article, I would be happy to add them. I did not come across WWII records indicating aircraft accidents or incidents with 50 or more fatalities in a single occurrence. I have never said that this list represents the absolute universe of all 50+ fatality accidents and incidents, but it does reflect a detailed search of multiple comprehensive resources. It seems like you have already made up your mind, but I would ask you to reconsider your opposition. Thank you.--Godot13 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If a WWII heavy bomber, usually a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, holds a crew of about 10, unless there were mass ground fatalities, at least 4 or 5 aircraft would need to collide to produce 50+ deaths.--Godot13 (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From memory, there were incidents where multiple mid-air collisions took place. The crash of a B-24 at Port Morseby which killed about 60 American airmen and Australian soldiers on 7 September 1943 is also missing (see Landing at Nadzab#Follow up). 07:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- I read the account of the B-24 crash. It is a contender for the list but one technical point needs to be satisfied to meet the definitional criteria: when did the 44 survivors who later died of their wounds actually die? Unless it happened within 30 days of the accident, it is not considered an aviation-related fatality per the operational definition. Do you happen to know if this information is contained within the cited references? Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to follow up on the crash you pointed out led me to this source (PDF page 60) which I think clearly indicates that 16 were immediately killed and another 45 died from related injuries (mostly burns) within 24 hours, therefore the total number of accident fatalities would be 61. I feel confident that the source is reliable. Do you agree regarding the source and the tally? I will add it shortly. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Late comment on this one - going by the Federal definitions the 30-day rule is only for the purposes of statistical reporting. And there's no guarantee that the sources used on the various articles are sticking to that usage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At least 95% of the occurrences can be found in the in the Aviation Safety Network (ASN) database. The ASN definition of fatal occurrences is also consistent with US Federal Code and the ICAO. I think I do understand your point (i.e., that information in the ASN database, or compiled by different investigative agencies, is in turn coming from multiple sources which could abide by slight variations in defining a fatality). I have seen examples (I can’t cite them off hand) where the ASN record did explicitly mention deaths occurring days after an accident; these were always included in the overall fatality count. Also, I think having this data available is the benefit of definition-based statistical reporting. I guess there will always be some margin of error, but I have done everything possible to minimize it.Godot13 (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this statement is still unreferenced, I'm afraid that I'm going to maintain the oppose. I'm not confident that this list is in fact comprehensive. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no existing reference to cover this routine calculation which, though lengthy, is basic addition of the list's main table. I did note that the figures represent a summary of the main table. While I do think the list is comprehensive, I do not believe it is (or could be) exhaustive (but this can easily become a discussion splitting hairs as some sources define these words as synonyms, while others do not). If it would gain your support, I would be happy to add a note in the first paragraph as a caveat regarding the coverage (comprehensive vs. exhaustive) of the list. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Nick-D, can you find any entries that are missing? Many lists in Wikipedia have no single source which demonstrate overall completeness. We also have a number of featured lists with the {{incomplete list}} template. Would tightening the phrasing of the inclusion criteria help you remove your opposition? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I pointed out a missing entry I was aware of above. I image that there are similar incidents missing from the list which people with knowledge of (for example) British, United States, Soviet and German military air transport operations would be aware of. I don't think that criterion 3a is met here. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, in that case it will clearly be absolutely impossible to ever satisfy you that the list is complete if you "image there are similar incidents missing". Understood. We'll have to take that into account when we close this. As I noted, this will be the case for many lists, that there will be no single source containing all the items, just good faith that the editor has done a good job of doing his/her best with the sources available to them. We can't wait forever for mythical experts to pop up and say, hmm, I seem to recall an accident .... And if they do, we can add them! In other words, what measures could be taken to address your currently in-actionable opposition (an opposition based on "I think other things may be missing but I can't say for sure...")? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Okay, in that case it will clearly be absolutely impossible to ever satisfy you that the list is complete": not true. If the article were to be actually based on sources which provide a comprehensive listing, or on a survey of a wide range of sources, I would be satisfied that the article is complete. That isn't the case. That kind of comment, as well as you teasing me for a typo, is pretty poor form for a featured content director - do you actually want to encourage participation in this forum? I presume that you won't be closing this nomination? Given that I, as a non-expert, was able to immediately spot an omission from this list when I reviewed it it seems safe to say that there are other obvious omissions, especially in light of the very narrow sourcing used here. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding tone, I've commented at WT:FLC. For this list, wouldn't {{Dynamic list}} be worth using? At the very least it would indicate that content can change as new incidents occur. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Crisco, I've already suggested that template, see my comment above. Also, suddenly we have a request for a wide range of sources. Prior to this, the oppose was because the opposer believed people with knowledge of military operations would be aware of omissions. This is clearly non-actionable. But let's look at sources... The first twelve are all from different sources. I see sources from the transport departments of Japan, Canada, US, UK etc... I see the BBC, CNN, Boeing, CBS, The New York Times, Flight International, Flight Global.... if the opposer could suggest other sources, I'm sure the nominator will do their best to use them. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick-I think we should define a few terms. For example, non-expert. Forgive me if my count is slightly off, but according to your user page, you have authored or significantly contributed to 20 Featured articles, 8 A-Class articles, and 15 Good articles, all on some aspect of military history, with 19 specifically regarding military aviation. I would say that you are selling yourself short with the reference non-expert. With your vast knowledge, you were able to point out a single missing aviation accident. When asked to clarify the details (i.e., how many fatalities occurred immediately after the accident), you never responded so I found the relevant entry from the squadron's field diary. You are welcome to contribute constructively but (as mentioned above) your critique of the list, as it currently stands, is in-actionable.--Godot13 (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like 90% of the references are to the Aviation Safety Network website: to present the first twelve sources as being typical of the list's sourcing is rather silly. For an article on this kind of topic I would have expected to see references to works on large aircraft (which typically provide exhausting coverage of accidents), histories of aviation in major flying countries (including possibly histories of major airports and airlines) and histories of military operations. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting the sources used aren't reliable? I simply stated that many different sources have been used, from a variety of countries and publications. Can you be specific in which resources would alleviate your concerns? The "histories" you suggest are somewhat nebulous, I don't really know what you mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The range of literature on aviation topics is very large, and often quite specialised. For example, there are detailed reference works on most aircraft types (eg, see searches on DC-3, Antanov and Boeing on Amazon.com), and similar works exist for most other segments of the aviation industry (for instance, see Soviet aviation and aviation disaster for a flavour of what's available. There are also similar kinds of works on most major airlines. While these kind of books are very daggy, they're goldmines of information, and should provide information on other accidents which are not in the ASN database, or where there are differing accounts/details. I'm not suggesting that there needs to be an exhaustive search through this vast literature (which would be an insanely huge task), but that at least the 'high level' works, and works on particularly accident-prone regions and aircraft can be expected to add to the list. I hope that's helpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As a somewhat belated response to Godot13's comment above, I'm knowledgeable about Australian military aviation and some other much more specific topics in other countries, but wouldn't know the first thing about, for example, Soviet tactical air transport operations, most US and UK World War II-era military air transport, Chinese and African airlines, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate what you are getting at with respect to sources. The Aviation Safety Network (connected with the Flight Safety Foundation has proven to be fairly comprehensive and widely used as a reference in academic peer-reviewed journal publications. I think the list in its present sourced form far exceeds what has been deemed acceptable by many of the other aviation lists. This being said, I am working on a 25-49 fatality list (which will be at least 500-600 incidents) and will incorporate some of the suggestions you’ve made into that list while also doing additional fact checking and, if necessary, updating this present list. I am on vacation and cannot order reference books right now. I imagine it will take me at least two months to complete the second list. As such a review will likely yield, at best, very few additional cases, I would hope to proceed with the current FLC process and simply add any additional material as it comes to light. I don’t know if that is good enough to garner your support. Godot13 (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked at the Amazon search pages above and see the types of books you are referring to. The descriptions of the books do not indicate whether they contain specific tables/lists of crash or accident data, in many cases an entire book covers a single model of a given aircraft (necessitating mass purchasing to be truly comprehensive), and the cost of assembling such a library is not insignificant. If this list had a more narrow scope, it would be simple to purchase 7-10 well reviewed reference books for background research. But given the scope, I do not think I will be able to satisfy your conditions for support at the present time.-Godot13 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the 6+ weeks since this list was published the Port Moresby crash is the only accident/incident to surface that was not included. Please see the reference section of the list (books and further reading) to see the five books which have been reviewed in the past two weeks. Very educational reading, but no additional incidents. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny, it would seem that the sixth book reviewed today was something of a charm: two additional incidents (both somehow overlooked on the ASN website) have been entered...-Godot13 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
