Talk:Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation Unassessed

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Journalism Unassessed

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a 1903 New York Times editorial predicted it would take one to ten million years to develop an operating flying machine?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly.

Wikipedia

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)[reply]

(

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.[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Missing info request

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

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)[reply]