Talk:Aeroméxico Connect Flight 2431/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 15:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Comments

" The plane rapidly" never keen on the use of "plane", why not "aircraft" or "airplane"? This crops up throughout, it's not something I'm going to die on a hill about, but "plane" just doesn't feel encyclopedic to me...
It comes from trying to not overuse the same term over and over again. My go-to term is "aircraft", which appears in this article 37 times, followed by "plane" once "aircraft" starts to get repeated too often. I've used "plane" in this article 20 times. "Airplane" only appears once, in a quote. I took a peek at a few other articles I've done a lot of work on, and the pattern is the same. It wasn't really a conscious decision on my part, just the way I write. Plane is slightly more informal than airplane, which I feel tends to increase readability. I checked the AP Style Guide, Chicago Manual of Style and the Oxford Style Guide and none of them specify any preference over the other, although the AP guide definitely used the word "plane" in several examples in various contexts.
" All 103 people on board survived. 39 passengers and crew were injured" merge, to avoid choppy sentences, and also to avoid starting a sentence with a number.
Changed to "All 103 people on board survived, but 39 passengers and crew members were injured."
" 2:56 pm" (etc) -> "2:56 p.m."
Fixed all times that I could find.
" proceeded to taxi to the end of runway 03. As the plane taxied, rain" merge to avoid repeat of taxi.
Changed the first sentence to "headed toward the end of runway 03" as I couldn't decide on a way to merge the sentence without making it too much of a run-on.
"d 20 knot winds" convert units.
Added conversion templates to all units
" 3:18 indicating" p.m. missing.
Fixed that, although I'm tempted to just come back and reword the second instance.
"The aircraft proceeded down the runway. When..." time?
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking what time the plane proceeded down the runway? The previous paragraph mentioned that the flight was cleared for takeoff at 3:21, generally that's the "go" signal given to the pilots, so they would typically have started the takeoff roll within a few seconds of that. Nothing in my source notes indicates that there was any significant delay between when the clearance was issued and the takeoff roll began. Just doing to back-of-the-napkin math (total OR) and looking at the airport chart, it looks like the craft would have to travel about 5200ft from the terminal to the end of runway 03. Depending on how fast the pilot was taxiing, the plane can cover somewhere between 1,500 and 3,000 feet per minute. Add some time to account for pushback, and so on. The plane left the gate at 3:14, and was cleared for takeoff at 3:21, so the timeline seems to make sense.
" of 147 knots" convert (and others if possible - you do it for " 30 feet (9 m)" so be consistent throughout).
Done.
Could link "rotated" to Rotation (aeronautics).
Done.
" aircraft.[7][1]" refs in numerical order.
Done. See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
" It was first delivered in 2008.[6] It was first delivered to..." merge.
Done.
"landing cycles.[6][3](p22)" refs in numerical order.
Done. See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
General, for page number formats, I believe e.g. p. 1 and pp. 2–4 is the preference.
The article uses the {{rp}} template per WP:IBID to produce the page number citations when a large source is cited a large number of times throughout the article. I don't see a parameter that would let me change the ":p22" superscript to ":p. 22". The documentation for that template hints that the {{cite}} templates may be updated at some future date to be able to handle that natively, which would be nice.
" ATPL license" I would expand that.
I have it wikilinked during the first use in the article (first paragraph of the "crew" section). By expand, I assume you mean spell it out as "airline transport pilot license" instead of ATPL (that change also highlighted the grammatical error of calling it an ATPL license). I made that change.
"successful.[4][11][10]" refs in numerical order.
Done. See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
"first officer.[4][3](p20)" ditto.
Done. See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
"a Commercial pilot license and" C->c.
Done.
" the crash.[4][3](p21) " order.
Done. See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
"r injuries in the crash.[4][3](p21)" ditto.
Done. See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
" 99 passengers and four crew" 99/4 per MOSNUM.
Done.
" 31 were Mexican citizens, 65 were United States citizens, one..." ditto.
Done.
" in flames.[13][14][4] " ref order.
Done. See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
" About 3 to 4 " three to four.
Done.
"called for a strike" did they strike? Was it resolved?
One source says "threatened to strike". The other says that in mid-September, the pilots' union agreed to strike by October 1. A different couple of others that aren't included in the article mentioned that the union members unanimously agreed to a strike. On October 1st, the union delayed the strike for 48 hours and on October 3rd, the union and the company agreed to a new contract. One provision of the new contract was that non-working flight crews would continue to be denied access to the cockpit, but would received reserved seats in the main cabin. Added new sentence and source for that.
"the airline.[23][21]". order
Done. See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
"for the crash.[26][18] " order
Done. See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
" altitude."[4][3](p66)[27] " order.
Done. See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
Three paras in "Final report" start "The investigation" which is a little repetitive.
Changed to "the report"/"Investigators"/"The Investigation"/The commission".
Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.
Done.

An excellent article and an interesting read. Some trivial points above. I'll put it on hold while we go through these. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your feedback, my responses are in italics after each of the points you have identified above. Take a look at it again when you get a chance and see if there are any more improvements you can suggest.

Also, a comment about reference order comments. I do think it looks nice to have the references in numerical order, but I'm not sure how helpful it is to have it that way in the article. I've made the changes, and now all of the citations are in order, but all someone has to do is insert a statement at the beginning of the article that uses Aviation Herald as a reference, for example (currently reference #4), and they all get renumbered. Reference #4 becomes reference #1, and they're all out of order again. I also didn't see anything in MOS:CITE about it, but I've seen these types of suggestions in the past, and have seen people make those changes on pages on my watchlist. Just a thought. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Very nice work, easily exceeds the requirements of GAN, thanks for your comprehensive work and detailed responses above, and for making changes where appropriate. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic