Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avianca Flight 52/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2015 [1].

Avianca Flight 52[edit]

Nominator(s): Veggies (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Boeing 707 flight between Colombia and New York City that crashed on January 25, 1990 due to fuel starvation. Veggies (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of this accident, which is odd considering the date. This is superb article and totally fascinating.

  • I found the intro statement somewhat difficult to read. The information is all good, but it's sort of randomly placed and repetitive. There's also some examples of connecting statements being used to connect things that aren't really related (talking to traffic control did not cause the aircraft to run out of fuel) How about something to the effect of...
Avianca Flight 52, a Boeing 707, ran out of fuel and crashed while on approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport on January 25, 1990. Eight of the nine crew members and 65 of the 149 passengers on board were killed. Hundreds of emergency personnel responded to the crash site and helped save victims. Many of those who survived were severely injured and required months or years to physically recover.
Flight 52 was a regularly scheduled flight from Bogotá to New York, via Medellín. The flight left Medellín with more than enough fuel for the journey and progressed toward JFK normally. While en route, the flight was placed in three holding patterns while approaching New York and became critically low on fuel. The flight attempted to make a landing at JFK, but bad weather, coupled with poor communication and inadequate management of the aircraft, [really?] forced it to abort and attempt a go-around. The flight ran out of fuel before it was able to make a second landing attempt. The airplane crashed approximately 20 miles (32 km) from JFK, striking a hillside in the small village of Cove Neck, New York, on the north shore of Long Island.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the crash resulted from the flight crew failing to properly declare a fuel emergency, resulting in air traffic control underestimating the seriousness of the situation. Weather, air traffic controller performance, and FAA traffic management were also cited as contributing to the events that led to the accident. This conclusion was controversial, with disagreement between investigators, passengers, and Avianca as to who was ultimately responsible. Eventually, the US Federal Government joined with Avianca to settle damages due to the victims. The crash was also portrayed in a variety of media.
I'm not perfectly happy with this either, but I think its somewhat better?
  • Could you say more about what's inadequate or being repeated about the intro?
  • link to hush kit, remove quotes around second instance.
Done.
  • B-707, or simply 707? I've always seen the later.
Changed it to 707
  • "At least six bodies were found outside the fuselage" This statement seems out of place, should it not be in the previous section? Or is there some detail I'm missing here? And does this total include the deck crew, or is this passengers only?
I moved it to a better spot.
  • "evacuated to hospitals" suggest para break here, but I'll leave this one to you.
  • "At least one emergency responder" I think this should be the first statement, priests after.
Done.
  • "At least one flight crew member was airlifted" Cockpit crew or flight crew? If the later, this should be moved down.
Flight crew is the cockpit crew. The flight attendants and maître d' are called cabin crew.
  • "Two surviving male passengers " definitely should be a separate para.
I moved them to a better section
  • "The investigation of Flight 52 began immediately after the crash" I'm not sure this requires mentioning, it always does.
Deleted it.
  • "FDR foil was found to have been taped down at some point" What does "taped down" mean?
The report doesn't elaborate on "taped down." The foil is much like a roll of aluminum foil. If you tape the edge of the foil to the roll, you won't be able to extract it. But that's my interpretation.
  • "they were being treated routinely and not given any emergency priority" I'd like to see an explanation as to why this is.
I'm not sure how to explain this. I'm just citing the report, not giving what I think is my opinion. I assume the ATC would simply give them a straight vector to their final approach, not have them do loops in the air. Again, my interpretation.
  • "The report cited recurring maintenance problems with the airplane's autopilot" this is not mentioned in the section on the aircraft, and it seems it should be.
I mentioned it in the aircraft section as suggested.
  • "The same summer" suggest making this its own para.
Done. Thank you, @Maury Markowitz: for your input. -- Veggies (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest increasing size of both map and diagram to improve readability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- @Veggies: I've seen no response to any of the comments above in almost two weeks, if you don't have the time or inclination to continue with the review then it will have to be archived. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: , Ian, I haven't found the time to make a comprehensive post here, but I suggest this be archived for a serious miss at comprehensiveness. Pilots don't just fly around a plane full of people and run out of fuel. The cultural and linguistic issues that contributed to the crash have been the subject of scholarly research that is not dealt with here. The nominator needs to spend more time on research ... I could list all of the missing sources if needed, but I did the work several weeks ago and would have to reconstruct it. It is obvious to anyone who understands Spanish and the hispanic culture what happened here, and that issue is covered by scholarly sources, and it is significant because of the changes in procedures that resulted. In other words, these people did not die in vain, and this article is a miss. See google scholar and plain old google on Avianca 52 and the language and cultural issues that led to the crash. The miss here is by focusing on FAA sources and leaving out other types of scholarly research and sourcing ... pls deal with the cultural aspects of how this crash happened, and how that then made it significant in changes that occurred. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to respond to this. If there's a major study on Avianca 52 regarding linguistics and the changes it brought about in the US airline ATC industry, I've yet to hear about it. I surveyed Google Scholar and didn't find much of interest (74 results—mostly 0-2 citations each). Also, I don't understand what you mean by "I did the work several weeks ago and would have to reconstruct it." Did you "do" that work on Wikipedia, on your sandbox,—what? -- Veggies (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did the google searches on another device (from which it is hard to type), late at night. If you really aren't able to find the sources (it should not be that hard), I will do the work again and post them here tomorrow. Out of time for now ... I'm sorry I didn't save those results somewhere, and it was Ian's post hitting my watchlist that jogged my memory of my late-night reading that I hadn't followed up on. Later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The post is non-specific but I will assume SG is referring to Malcolm Gladwell's comments, which I trust just as much as anything else the man says (i.e., zero). As was quickly pointed out, there is a earlier example of precisely the same thing happening to a US crew.
SG states that "Pilots don't just fly around a plane full of people and run out of fuel.". Oh yes they do. All the time. And why? Because the cockpit crew doesn't clearly and specifically report the problem to the person that needs to know about it. In this case the engineer repeatedly stated he had declared an emergency when he had done no such thing. In the case of UA173, the cockpit crew repeatedly made non-specific remarks about the problem and never clearly stated what was going on.
Reading over the sources, and this article is a pretty faithful representation IMHO, it's "obvious" to me that they had bad cockpit communications. And by "obvious" I mean "obvious to someone that took their commercial pilot recs and had this drilled into them over and over and over." There is a cultural issue involved, but that's the one that's always existed, the PIC who doesn't listen. This is DRILLED into you these days, specifically because of events like this.
But don't take my word for it, we have the word of the NTSB report, which the airline agreed to. I looked for sources that said otherwise, but apparently your google-fu is better than mine. In the meantime I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with this article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar produces (at least):

  • Ulijn J & Strother JB (2012). The Influence of Culture on Information Overload
  • Cultural issues — SandyGeorgia 15:46, 20 May 2015 — continues after insertion below
Abstract does not mention Avianca and the text-access is restricted. I see no evidence that it is directly about the subject per the reliable source guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 May 2015
  • doi:10.1016/0363-8111(91)90005-6
Ditto.
What does this article say about the subject that has not been covered?
Looks like a primary source to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 May 2015
I already saw this article before I rewrote the Avianca page. It is restricted-access, like the rest, but from what I gleaned, it only mentioned the crash obliquely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 May 2015
  • If you are writing an FA, per 1c, you cannot "glean" content without reviewing it. It is not I who has to access these articles-- it is you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I don't. That's the point. All I can review is the abstracts. And "gleaned" doesn't mean I used it (without citations) in the article. -- Veggies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does this say that the article does not cover?
I see nothing about Avianca in the abstracts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 May 2015
Per 1c, you should not be accessing abstracts; you should be accessing the articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the articles, then?—You linked to the abstracts. -- Veggies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly here. [2] Graham Beards (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions Avianca twice—neither in any way that would add anything significant to the article.
Source is not about Avianca.
The Avianca article cites the lack of brace-position instructions as contributing to severity of injuries. What else does this (restricted-access) article add?
Not about Avianca—and I'll use this as proof that you didn't read any of the articles you Googled. "Avianca" is cited as an "uptake loop"—that's it. If you don't want to support FA-nomination, @SandyGeorgia:, fine. Just don't expect me to play fetch with every Google link you throw at me. -- Veggies (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the followup. You (and the coords) may use it as you like, because my post is a week old, and I will be traveling now and unable to respond further. (I am unconvinced that because Maury M doesn't like Malcolm Gladwell, that info can be excluded, there is a helpful analysis there of the language issues, but you may convince the Coords that Gladwell is not a good source.)

However. I can say the same for your feedback here, because I did not find the text access restricted on Uljin & Struther, and it is about Avianca 52. I do not have journal access for the others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, would you please not interrupt my posts, and particularly without signing each entry? If makes followup and tracking much harder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, the nomination would seem to be failing 1b and 1c unless these sources are examined (there are more-- samples only).

My google scholar search did not cough up the Malcolm Gladwell mentioned by Maury Markowitz, although he does show up on regular google searches. I'm not sure a case can be made for excluding that source based on you (Maury) not liking the man, though. He does seem to have a handle on the cultural deference that contributed.

Also, no I am not discussing "precisely the same thing" as in the US crew: I am saying the article does not examine the specific language and cultural issues. The US crew was dealing with a separate emergency (and I presume they spoke English, although I didn't delve all the way into that article). — SandyGeorgia 15:46, 20 May 2015 — continues after insertion below

And you want me to do what with those articles? Firstly,
Whose comment is this it is unsigned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mine, from an abandoned attempt to untangle this mess. Struck. -- Veggies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I read this version, I also noted 1a (prose) issues-- samples only:
  1. Repetitive and unnecessarily laborious prose, resulting in ... resulted from ... resulting in ... three times in two sentences
    ... ran out of fuel on approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), resulting in the aircraft crashing onto a hillside ... the crash resulted from the flight crew failing to properly declare a fuel emergency, resulting in air traffic control underestimating the seriousness of the situation.
    How about trying simple English like "ran out of fuel ... and crashed ... More words is not always better than less.
  2. More of same:
    The flight left Medellín with more than enough fuel for the journey and progressed toward JFK normally. While en route, the flight was placed in three holding patterns.
    Why can't we simplify ? The flight left Medellín with more than enough fuel, but was placed in three holding patterns while en route to JFK.
  3. Due to poor communication between the air crew and the air traffic controllers
    Not phrased quite correctly ... there were communication problems among the crew and between the crew and controllers ... this needs rephrasing based on sources I present later (here).
  4. ... well as an inadequate management of the fuel load by the pilots ...
    ?????
  5. This dire situation was not recognized as an emergency by the controllers.
    Again, not quite correct on the phrasing for the same reason ... the controllers didn't have info to even suspect a fuel emergency.
  6. More laborious prose:
    The flight attempted to make a landing at JFK, but bad weather, coupled with poor communication and inadequate management of the aircraft, forced it to abort and attempt a go-around. The flight ran out of fuel before it was able to make a second landing attempt.
    Do flights attempt landings or do aircraft attempt landings? Inadequate management twice in two sentences.
    Why not something along the lines of ... The first landing attempt at JFK was aborted because of bad weather and <whatever>; during a go-around to attempt a second landing, the flight ran out of fuel.
  7. Eventually, the US Federal Government joined with Avianca to settle damages due to the victims.
    settle damages due to victims?????
  8. The crash was also portrayed in a variety of media.
    Says nothing.
These are samples only from the lead; I could continue on with the rest of the article, but I do not believe that FAC is the best place for extensively rewriting articles. Also:
  • There are MOS:LQ issues-- please review.
  • I find the mention of cocaine to be gratuitous and off-topic (just because the news highlights sensational aspects doesn't mean we have to), but if you must include such, perhaps this is a source that could be examined?
  • Surely we can find a way to refer to cockpit and crew personnel without saying the flight was manned (gender neutral language pls).
This is debatable: the root of the word is possibly latin for "hand" as in "manage", "manual", "maintenance" and others; ( see also "man the decks" "all hands on decks"). Graham Beards (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the sourcing concerns are addressed, and an independent copyeditor (someone not familiar with the topic or involved with it so far) goes through and cleans up prose and jargon (the middle of the article gets unnecessarily jargony), I'll be happy to re-engage. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
failing 1b and 1c unless these sources are examined
I have examined them, and only one of them even mentions the issue you're talking about. The majority of the papers have to do with language issues, which I believe the article covers with reasonable depth already. Among the links are papers on the use of English in ATC comms and cabin briefings, using cross-cultural icons in automation systems, the use of synthesized voices to clarify language issues due to accents, etc. I could address them paper by paper if you wish. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Don't bother. He made a bad-faith attempt to oppose nomination for some reason. I looked at all the articles he Googled. Some have nothing to do with the flight. He simply cited them because Google recognized the words "Avianca Flight 52". He didn't bother to actually read any of the articles and, instead, threw them all on here as "evidence" that the article was lacking in...something. -- Veggies (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the majority do have to do with language issues (they all do, I believe): that is my point about the relevance of them (that pilots don't just fly around and not pay attention to fuel, killing lots of people-- there was a cultural and language issue here that was significant, and led to changes in procedures). Anyway, see my response above, where you and Veggies seem to be differing about what is in those articles. I'm unable to followup for several weeks due to travel, and trust the coords will discount my commentary if need be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mind telling me why you deleted my signed comment? -- Veggies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Still here, travel delay.) Naturally, I was unaware of having deleted anything, do not know how that may have happened, and apologize if I did! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SG you are not addressing the issue I am raising. In your original post you spoke of "obvious" "hispanic culture" issues that resulted in "changes in procedures". The citations you added earlier did not address this. Are you talking solely about language issues now? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even if you think the cultural issues are a load of bunk, in this case I believe that they are significant enough to not be a "fringe" line of thought on the crash. If nothing else, the article is currently misrepresenting Gladwell a tad - from the linked review, he focuses on the cultural issues, but the blurb doesn't indicate that, blandly saying he references the crash. This is fine if the reference is just a straight-up factual retelling (e.g. the Mayday episode, presumably), but if the author is trying to make a point or is focusing on one aspect in particular, I think it's worth the space to explain what that point is (again, even if you think Gladwell is a flake). Of course, if there's a cultural explanations section/paragraph added, it should ideally be sourced to something a little more scholarly than Gladwell, of course.
The article is pretty good overall though, it's just weird from a layperson's perspective how the article underplays one of the more famous elements of the crash. Again, this is fine, especially if sourced to someone ("according to Bob Smith, the pilots just done goofed, it's a mistake, language/culture had nothing to do with it"), but I'd rather the article explicitly address (and then perhaps dismiss) the issue rather than just not talk about it. SnowFire (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This nom has generated plenty of healthy discussion but after a month is still not progressing towards consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. I hope to see further collaboration take place on the talk page and perhaps at a Peer Review, before a return to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Avianca_Flight_52/archive2&oldid=1142603230"