Template:Did you know nominations/N661US

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 PrimalMustelid talk 12:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

N661US

(
)
N661US, the prototype 747-400
N661US, the prototype 747-400

Created by RickyCourtney (talk). Self-nominated at 19:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/N661US; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • I imagine a hook about Northwest Airlines Flight 85 would be a better option given how heroic that event was. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Per your suggestion, I've added an ALT1 focused on the Northwest Airlines Flight 85 incident. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Reviewing now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Adequate sourcing: the second paragraph in the "Northwest Airlines Flight 85" section lacks any citations, so this holds up the nomination. Also, there is at least one fact in the lead section that is I cannot find supported anywhere in the body: "The problem was blamed on metal fatigue". The entire last paragraph is supported by a dead link, but I am assuming good faith on that. Other: This doesn't hold up the nomination, but the first sentence of the lead section is pretty confusing. I highly recommend rewriting it. Hook: ALT1 is too long, so I wrote out ALT2, which is still supported by in-line citations in the article. I didn't check the citation for the original hook. Conclusion If you like my ALT2 hook and you take care of the two issues on adequate sourcing, then this nomination will be good to proceed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Dugan Murphy, thank you for your comments. I have added a source for the metal fatigue, rewrote the first sentence and fixed the dead refs. Also, I like your ALT2. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Well done. I believe this nomination is now good to proceed with ALT2. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Dugan Murphy and RickyCourtney: Because the reviewer proposed ALT2 we need a new reviewer. I also added a [citation needed] tag which needs to be resolved before promotion or approval. Bruxton (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bruxton: The requested citation has been added. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bruxton: Can you point to where in the DYK guidelines it says that a second reviewer is needed? To the contrary, at the bottom of WP:DYKRI it says: "Nominators are encouraged to work with reviewers to come up with hooks that meet the standards of the DYK process, and new alternate hooks can be proposed by anyone (nominator, reviewer, other third party) in an effort to produce at least one viable hook." Based on that, I would say this nomination is safe to proceed unless you think there is an issue with hook ALT2. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

See above a proposed amended version of ALT2, which should be somewhat clearer. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I don't think a new hook alternative is needed. Furthermore, the article doesn't refer to the incident as a near miss, so I'm not sure that term is appropriate for the hook. I am nevertheless open to an argument that it is, especially if RickyCourtney thinks so. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I defer to you and others, but as a non-specialist in this topic, the words "suddenly banked hard to the left" were not very interesting on their own - on their own, the phrase doesn't quite communicate the seriousness of the incident. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Dugan Murphy: We have discussed this a length on WT:DYK basically the language is in WP:DYKRR

You're not allowed to approve your own hook

. When I discussed a nominator approving a reviewers it was agreed that that runs afoul of the rule. Bruxton (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bruxton: Thank you for pointing that out! I had no idea. RickyCourtney and I will await another reviewer to approve one of these hooks. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Not approving any hook with the phrase "near miss". What else have you got?--Launchballer 19:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: RickyCourtney (the nominator) and I (the original reviewer) settled on ALT2, but we need a second reviewer's approval to proceed. What do you think about ALT2? Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
ALT2 short enough, cited, and interesting. If I was proposing the hook myself, I might link "the prototype Boeing 747-400" to N661US and the flight to "an incident in which the aircraft suddenly banked hard to the left in flight", thereby taking both titles out of the hook, but ALT2 as proposed is good to go. Let's roll.--Launchballer 12:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/N661US&oldid=1219218058"