Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Airlines Flight 11

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:03, 16 June 2008 [1].

American Airlines Flight 11

Self-nominator: This article has been significantly improved in the last few days, doubling the amount of verifiable sources and increasing the reader's knowledge of the subject. Now, the article flows well and is ready for review. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You may have to change the CNN photo to the image with the description page, because currently a fair use rationale/copyright isn't shown to the viewer, making it clear it isn't free use. Hello32020 (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I have taken care of it. It now links to the image page itself. -- VegitaU (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested help with copyediting from User:PTR. He has helped me with previous featured articles. --Aude (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the obvious problems listed. -- VegitaU (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two users have come and copyedited the article. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks better now that it has been copyedited and the lead has been expanded. —
  talk ~ edits) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Alrighty, I've changed ref 33 to reflect the original U.S. airdate per IMDB. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I know it was picky, but... anyway, all done! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, am leaning toward support

• Is this a edit blip? On board, two flight attendants board contacted American Airlines,
• The Hijacking section, with an image, quote box, and 2 media files looks crowded.
• Is this a verbatim quote? All of a sudden, boom he disappear into the Trade Center. I'm pretty strict with using original punctuation and grammar in the quotes I use, but I just wanted to make sure that's accurate.
• Who suggested this? It is possible that al-Suqami killed Lewin after he attempted to stop the hijacking
• This sentence: The nine minutes of advanced notification about the hijacking of Flight 11 was the most that NORAD received out of the four hijacked aircraft on 9/11. does it mean the time between notifying the military and impact was the longest of all 4 hijacked flights? I don't quite understand this.
• It appears that you have researched the article well. I think it is well-written, but perhaps as a testimony to its writing - I can't read it without being upset. I would like to read it several more times to make a better decision. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have tried addressing each point. The first point was indeed a typo - my fault. Regarding the quote, it is verbatim. --Aude (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a better source for the quote. For some reason, the one cited wasn't coming up on my computer. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've read the article about five times now. It doesn't get any easier, but I was concerned that there were content areas not covered, but I can't think of anything else that deals with this flight only. I still don't quite get that sentence about NORAD's advanced notification, but the rest of the article is well-written and apparently well-researched. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to word it clearer, but NEADS/NORAD (the military) was notified about Flight 11 at 8:37 a.m. (nine minutes before the crash), which is the amount of time available to them to respond to the situation. They were notified about United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 a.m. (same time it crashed into the South Tower). They were notified about American Airlines Flight 77 three minutes before it crashed into the Pentagon. NORAD/the military was notified about United Airlines Flight 93 at 10:07 a.m. (four minutes after it crashed in Pennsylvania). People may wonder why the military wasn't able to respond in time, but in reality, they had little or no advanced notice about the hijackings. The nine minutes (inadequate as it may be) with Flight 11 was the most time they had to do something in response. --Aude (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Generally the article is looking good, although the 24 hour times threw me off a bit because I'm so used to 12 hour clocks.

This article should mention that Seth MacFarlane was supposed to be a passenger on the flight, but got to the airport late and missed the flight. Raul654 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: To be honest, that little factoid was on the article, but I removed it during its overhaul as it seemed

trivial. And, honestly, in light of the generally serious, factual mood of the article, I'm not really sure where or why I'd put it in. It's already mentioned on his article. The article doesn't include any other famous people affected by the flight. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If there were any other celebs affected by the crash - I don't know of any myself - IMO they should be mentioned too. Other air-crash articles mention famous people killed in them. See /Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007#Flight_and_passenger_information Raul654 (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Korean Air article goes overboard with trivia. It's fine to mention notable people who were passengers (which I just added), and thus victims on the flight. I think adding people who were "affected" but not on the flight goes a bit too far with trivia. --Aude (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Flight 007 isn't even a

good article to reference from. And I love Family Guy as much as anyone, but MacFarlane isn't notable because he almost set foot on the flight, he's notable because of his work in the entertainment industry. -- VegitaU (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Image:Atta in airport.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons. If you want to use it, you will probably have to upload it here at en Wikipedia with a non-free copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
• Image:Firstplane.jpg needs more specific source and copyright holder information.
• Recommend a {{Commoncat}} sisterlink to the Commons category associated with this article.

Kelly ^hi! 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will address these issues. It may take me a little bit of time. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to deal with these. The Mohamed Atta security footage image is now on enwiki, though discussion is ongoing on the Commons deletion request page. --Aude (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An issue with the Atta security frame - a separate rationale is needed for each usage of the image, and a little better reason is needed than simply "to illustrate Mohamed Atta on 9/11" - in other words, you need to address

WP:NFCC#8 in some fashion by providing a reason why the image is significant. Image:Firstplane.jpg looks fine now. Kelly ^hi! 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I tried updating the rationales to stress the fact that this is a major historical event and major piece of evidence successfully used against Zacarias Moussaoui. It is a visual record that he was there. Coupled with everything else (ticket records, flight personnel testimony, manifests) it proves his presence and action toward the attacks. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales look good now, nice work! Kelly ^hi! 22:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, a good start but work still needed. I caught and fixed numerous errors—why no peer review? At any rate, my opposition is on criterion 1b (comprehensiveness). The narrative leaves several questions unanswered, and there are some other misc prose issues, as follows:
  • "At 06:52, another hijacker made a call from a pay phone in Logan Airport to Atta's cell phone." Why have we been told the hijackers' names up to this point, but not this one?
  • "Satam al-Suqami, Wail al-Shehri, and Waleed al-Shehri also checked in for the flight in Boston." Why is al-Suqami's first name used again after he's already been introduced?
  • "At 08:26, approximately over Voorheesville, New York, the plane made a 100-degree turn to the south toward New York City." I don't understand how this information is known if the plane's transponder was not transmitting and the flight recorder was never found.
  • "NEADS called on two F-15 fighter jets at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, to scramble, intending to intercept. Flight 11 made a final turn towards Manhattan at 08:43. The F-15 fighters were scrambled from Otis at 08:46, but did not become airborne until 08:53." First, I'm not certain many readers will know what "scramble" means, considering that in the second sentence you demonstrate that it doesn't actually mean to take off. Second, why "become airborne" and not "take off"? Third, is this all the information that is known? The obvious question is why the planes did not take off and we need to at least indicate that the reason is not known if it's not.
  • "By that time, American Airlines Flight 11 had already crashed into the World Trade Center." You give the detail of which tower in the lead—why not here?
  • It's not necessary to supply the acronym "FDNY" because you don't use it again.
  • "Although the impact itself caused extensive structural damage, the long-lasting fire ignited by jet fuel was blamed for the structural failure of the tower." I think you need to clarify that the official report blames the fire. Are there reliable sources that blame other things?
  • "Rescue workers at Ground Zero ..." How will unfamiliar readers know what "Ground Zero" is? --Laser brain (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I've fixed every point except the NEADS passage as I'm still finalizing research on this. Honestly, I haven't had good experiences trying peer reviews, so I decided to opt out of it this time through. If you have trouble understanding something, please tell me what it is; I'll go through and clean it up.

Anyways, about the collapse, I am absolutely not compromising on this: the fires and lack of fireproofing, coupled with the structural damage, led to the tower's collapse. I want to be as emphatic as I can on this point. There is no reliable evidence linking anything else to this. And writing "the official story..." makes it sound like there could be something else. Like saying "the official story says Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building"; "the official story says Pearl Harbor was surprised-attacked by the Japanese"; "the official story says Apollo 11 landed Armstrong on the moon". -- VegitaU (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there, cowboy. I was just asking. If serious research has been published in reliable sources, you need to talk about it. If not, don't. I can tell you're accustomed to fighting off 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but have a bourbon and chill. --Laser brain (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's cool. I wasn't trying to be snotty, but there is nothing beyond CT regarding the collapse. My bad. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Okay, I've added some info to the NEADS passage. Officials spent some time trying to get authorization to issue the scramble order. Once it was finally issued, the pilots went out, mounted and started the jets, and took off. The whole process took about 15 minutes. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You have a borked citation. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fixed. It was a problem I overlooked during my last edits. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominal support...but can we clarify which one of the police officers is being quoted after the police officers Patrick McNerney and Jose Sanchez looked for signs of distress: comment? The quote says "I" several times but which one of them is making the comment?--MONGO 13:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that little oddity. It's from a memorandum and it's wording is confusing, but I got the correct name on the quote. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did a few stylistic changes, but not sure it helped. I find the prose a little choppy in places, but not enough to keep this article from being featured. The refs seem to jive withe the appropriate sections so I therefore support.--MONGO 05:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've spent an hour or so tinkering with the prose, [2], please check that I haven't introduced any errors.

• Support—TONY (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes; I found MoS issues throughout (
  WP:PUNC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]