Talk:2022 Dallas air show mid-air collision/GA1

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig shows no issues. Images are correctly licensed; the Twitter screenshot is from an organization that I can't find any references to, rather than a news organization, but there's no doubt about what it shows so I see no reason to be concerned about reliability.

• Harold Skaarup's Warplane Survivors USA: Texas is published by Lulu, which means it's self-published. We need other evidence that this can be regarded as a reliable source. Y removed
• Per this page, Air Facts is mostly reader-written, so it is not a reliable source. N not done; it was not my source, but it is written by a professional and undergoes editorial review before being published per submission guideline; if it were used to establish notability, I'd agree, but I think it is sufficient to use for supporting evidence

  OK -- I think this would be questioned again if you take this to FAC, but since the article makes it clear this is a pilot's opinion as an eyewitness, I think it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the public response section adds much of value. I wouldn't fail GA for this, but these are anodyne comments from minor officials that don't give the reader any useful information. comment: there was a
  talk discussion
  about this; I agree it's not critical, but seems standard for aviation accidents and would lean toward leaving; what do you think?

  I wouldn't include them myself, but there's no reason in the GA criteria they can't be included, so I'll strike. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead should be a summary of the article; I would add a couple of the details from the lead to the body text to comply with this -- the exact time of the crash; the fact that the airshow was organized by the Commemorative Air Force; that the show was called Wings Over Dallas; that the date coincided with Veterans Day. If you do that you can probably remove the citations from the lead, if you want to -- citations are not generally required in the lead since the information should be cited in the body. Y rewrote the lead

  Looks like the time is still not in the body? It's in the infobox but it would be easy to add to the detailed narrative of the crash too. And the other points are still not mentioned in the body -- two are mentioned as asides in the "Public response" section but it would be better to include them at their natural place in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mike Christie I see your points now--these escaped me earlier for some reason. I've included information in Crash section with links to the NYT. "the exact time of the crash" Y done (changed to around 1:20PM per available source citing NTSB); "was organized by the Commemorative Air Force" Y done; "was called Wings Over Dallas" Y done; "date coincided with Veterans Day" Y done (specified) Ppt91^talk 16:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to review the body of the article until you've responded to these points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC) @Mike Christie addressed, looking forward to your response Ppt91^talk 14:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

M16A3NoRecoilHax, and @Holidayruin). In any case, I am excited to get out of my comfort zone with improving this article. I'll address your comments as soon as possible! Ppt91^talk 14:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• "Leading to the crash, the air boss directed the bomber formation to fly parallel to the spectator viewing line": I don't like "leading to the crash", which hints at causation. How about "Just before the crash"? Y done
• "The apparent intent, from a pilot observing the action from the ground, was to execute single-ship passes": suggest "according to" rather than "from". And what's a "single-ship pass"? Y done (removed that and replaced with a simple description of intent to place themselves in front of the plane; perhaps this can be edited further by advanced aviation editors)
• "On January 12, 2023, the ATC audio was released. No altitude advice was given." Suggest "On January 12, 2023, the ATC audio was released, confirming that no altitude advice had been given", assuming that's the intended meaning. Y done Ppt91^talk 16:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

• FN 3 cites "On the day of the crash, both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) launched investigations into the accident." Technically this doesn't really verify that the NTSB launched their investigation that day, as it just says they would arrive at 9:00 p.m., so I would add something to validate that or change the statement, but it's a minor point. Y done (changed to "Following the crash")
• FN 14 cites "Craig Hutain, the sole pilot and fatality aboard the Bell P-63, had started flying solo at the age of 17 and was a former commercial pilot for Rocky Mountain Airways (1982–1985) and United Airlines (1985–2022). Hutain started flying as a child with his father, a World War II veteran, and had been a pilot for the Tora! Tora! Tora! airshow, a reenactment of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, at the time of his death." The source link is dead, which is not a problem for GA in itself, but I do need access to an archive of it to do the spotcheck. Y done (replaced link)

  The source doesn't appear to cover the dates for his commercial employment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 6 cites 'On November 30, the NTSB released a preliminary report. The report noted the lack of "altitude deconflictions briefed before the flight or while the airplanes were in the air."' The source only covers the first sentence; the second sentence needs to be cited to the report itself. Y done (linked report)
• FN 21 cites "The P-63F involved in the accident was known to have compromised visibility from the cockpit due to metal reinforcements; however, the wings are set further back from the cockpit compared to a P-51 Mustang, so a pilot would have better ventral visibility": the source says the visibility in a Mustang is better, not worse. And I think this needs rephrasing to make it clear that the Mustang is only being referenced as an example -- when I read this I wondered why a Mustang was relevant. Y done (removed Mustang altogether)

  There's nothing in the source about metal reinforcements; it just talks about the positioning of the metal framework. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 20 cites "On January 12, 2023, the ATC audio was released. No altitude advice was given." There's nothing about altitude advice that I can see in the source. Y done (provided another source from AP)
• FN 4 cites "The second aircraft involved was a P-63F-1-BE Kingcobra registered N6763, which was also operated by American Airpower Heritage Flying Museum. This plane was one of only two P-63F variants ever built and was one of only five P-63s that remained airworthy. It did not have a name and was painted in its original "X" test markings, originally used as reference points for tracking purposes." The source is a wiki, I've just realized, and so I think we need more evidence of reliability -- it says "This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information. If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information." at the top of the page. In any case some of the text appears unsupported -- the markings, for example. comment: I'll look into it and try to find additional source Y done (removed the reference entirely and supported other claims with news sources)

  The new source doesn't give the full identification as "P-63F-1-BE"; it just has "P-63F". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the five I am able to check, one is verified, one has a minor technical issue, one (FN 6) has the source linked, not cited, and the other two failed. I suggest verifying every source in the article and letting me know when you're ready for me to do another spotcheck -- I can't pass the article unless the spotcheck comes back clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC) @Mike Christie Thanks--this might take a while; as it turns out, I am also unfamiliar with many of these sources as these were added by other editors. I only did a preliminary check before nominating and will go through these more carefully now and add more if I can find alternatives. Ppt91^talk 17:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you like I can close this review as a fail, and you can renominate when ready. To be honest I would normally fail an article with this many verification issues, but you've been very responsive so I'm OK with keeping it open for a week or so if you think you can get it done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie I agree with you and, frankly, should have been more careful with assuming the thoroughness of other editors whose work I am not familiar with. However, I'd like see what I can do, so let's keep it open for a week. I have another nomination of my own (when I first saw the review notification, I actually thought it was in relation to that article) and a couple of reviews I am currently conducting, but I would hate to this one fail before putting in some work. Thanks for being so generous with your time. Ppt91^talk 17:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Ok, I think I went through all of them now. Removed several sources, along with claims they supported, added missing author in one, and checked the rest of the URLs for current access (they seem fine on my end, other than a few having a paywall after several reads, which I am happy to mark with the red lock if you think it needs to be added). I've also linked the NTSB preliminary report as PDF. I hope that will be enough for your spot-check. Looking forward to your thoughts and thanks again. Ppt91^talk 21:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ppt91, I'm afraid I'm going to fail this. When I went back through the spotchecks there are still little inconsistencies, and the point of a spotcheck is to come up clean, or very nearly so. I think if you do another pass through to catch this sort of thing and nominate again, it should pass fairly easily. Best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie That's fair. I'd need to re-do the work of other editors and essentially re-write it, which I am not in a place to do considering other commitments. The article improved anyway, which is always a good thing! Thanks. Ppt91^talk 21:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]