Talk:Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a 1903 New York Times editorial predicted it would take one to ten million years for humanity to develop an operating flying machine? Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wright-brothers-first-flight/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/John_Romita_Sr.

Created by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk). Self-nominated at 09:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• This is an editorial I casually know and it will thus be a pleasure to review this nomination in the coming days! WatkynBassett (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• The article was created on 7 September 2023 and nominated on the following day and is thus eligible.
• The article has over 1,500 characters of readable prose.
• The article is nicely sourced. I checked all sources and they cover their sentences - well done.
• The article is written in a neutral and non-promotional tone.
• I spotted no copyright or close-paraphrasing issues. Earwig picked up the quotes, which is entirely unconcerning.
• QPQ still needs the tick or other final closure. Done.
• Will review the hook soon! WatkynBassett (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The hook has the right length, it is interesting (and a welcome source for optimism about the future), it is cited inline, WP:SNOPES considers the source reliable and one can easily check the veracity of the claim by reading the article. I would suggest, however, to drop the "for humanity" which I consider superfluous. Thinking about the hook I wondered what you think about the following modification, which take up the fancy wording of the editorial?
  • ALT1 ... that a 1903 New York Times editorial predicted it would take one to ten million years to develop a flying machine "which will really fly"?
  • Conclusion: @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: I will happily approve the original hook (with the dropped "for humanity" [if you do not feel strongly about this]) or my alternate suggestion if you prefer it. Thank you for providing us with welcome optimism about the future and a nicely cited work! WatkynBassett (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• WatkynBassett, Thank you for the review! I am equally happy with the original hook or your proposed alternative. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
• Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d Good! Approving the original (without the "for humanity") and the ALT1 hook! Final choice is left to the promoter! WatkynBassett (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Missing info request

Can anyone attribute the article to a specific editor at the NYT? Johnnytucf (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Per the archived version of the article, there is no specific editor as most editorials are unsigned. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Reaction of NYT to Wright flight?

Might be interesting to read what the paper wrote after the Wrights‘ first flight was achieved. Was there any kind of acknowledgement that they had been mistaken? -- 2003:C0:9718:6B00:389A:1755:504C:6534 (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)