Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:57, 30 March 2017

Articles for creation B‑class

This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article was accepted on 31 October 2013 by reviewer Lugia2453 (talk · contribs).

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 October 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

That second paragraph in the lede

Seriously, wtf. Either that was written by someone who thought they were actually writing a primary source textbook, or it's been ripped off wholesale from one without credit. Either way, it's biased, and written in too informal a manner. I'd fix it or just nix it right now, but the problem is, given what it says, whether doing so would be to further mislead readers as to the impartiality (and/or reliability) of the rest of it unless the entire article was to be re-written.

Quite how it managed a "B-grade" with that in place is beyond me.

Remind me, how do we flag it with one of those natty full-width top-of-the-page banners, again? 193.63.174.211 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

NB, yes I've seen the note given within the HTML comment block at the top of the page. Whilst the sentiment of it is noble, and the rules are there to be broken, I still feel it's maybe in violation of the main WP tenets. Any pilot who decides to use the information listed here as the basis of their knowledge concerning safe control speeds, instead of a more professional source, probably shouldn't be entrusted with command of an aircraft in the first place; you wouldn't want drivers of road vehicles to do similar instead of seeking professional instruction...

This should be a place for collecting independently verifiable information - with it standing and falling on its own merit, rather than the prejudices either of editors who were taught it differently (and, in the writer of that comment block's opinion, "wrongly"), or the firebrand retort of whoever wrote that part, who believes those editors to be in the wrong, appealing to our emotions in order to drive their personal point home. Either a plane can be safely controlled at a particular speed when its critical engine(s) has/have failed, or it can't. Presumably said editor has done a study we can review? 193.63.174.211 (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

*scans rest of article* ... wow, someone's got an axe to grind, haven't they? The image with the caption "This placard would remind pilots"... is that your own work? Or is it something that's being officially mooted as a future required fitment by the FAA or similar? Because if it's the former... sorry chum. WP:FORUM, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. C'mon. Keep it factual and encyclopaedic. If this issue has got your back up so much, write a book about it. Fill it full of juicy scandal about notorious crashes that could have been prevented. Cause public outcry and hit the bestseller list. THEN reference it here. Rather than burying your campaign on a WP page that a few thousand people might ever read at best. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

...

Did I mention how the revision history suggests this article is 99.8% the work of a single guy who dropped it into WP as a fait accompli, and it hasn't seen any other significant attention for nearly 6 whole months since? Dear oh dear. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

...

Right, did some copyediting, got bored, have now gone and found relevant banners. However, in the spirit of not wanting to compromise your life saving, paradigm shifting mission too much, these may help:

OK? 193.63.174.211 (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Found templates, about eight that would apply in fact, picked the most relevant four, had some fun with the CoatRack one, gave up and kludged it the best I can (it's just intrinsically broken and ironically under-documented, far as I can tell), washed hands. Done and done. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Re to talker 193.63.174.211:

The 'someone' who wrote this article is a top aircraft expert, a graduate of the USAF Test Pilot School (class 1985A), for which the entry level was a MSc degree in engineering or a BSc degree and an entry exam. Test Pilot Schools were founded in Western countries after World War 2 because too many accidents happened during flight-testing new airplanes by 'regular' pilots who thought they knew all about airplanes.

The article was written because during the past 50 years incorrect definitions of minimum control speeds appeared in most books, including on WP. Authors of aviation books, flight manuals, articles on WP, etc. just copied their texts from incorrect sources, resulting in more than 3,000 casualties during the past 25 years (only counting the ones reported on the Internet). Even manuals by the FAA do neither agree with the airplane design methods taught at aeronautical universities, nor with their own flight test techniques presented in the FAA Flight Test Guides (AC 23-8 and AC 25-7) and not with flight-test techniques taught at Test Pilot Schools either.

The article was written using Airplane Design books of Dr. Jan Roskam, University of Kansas, course books of three Test Pilots Schools in the USA and UK and personal flight-test experience of the author. All of this is of the highest available level. Please review the references presented in the article before commenting any further.

The article will definitely save many lives of pilots and their passengers, provided pilots read and understand it; it will be found, eventually. May be the article is written in too informal a manner, but is definitely not biased; it might be better understood this way. The article is believed to be accessible and understandable for as many (pilot-)readers as possible; the accident rate might reduce. Regret you didn't like it, talker 193.63.174.211, hope you learned from it though. There was no reason for the language you used. Fly safely.

Harry FTEof85A (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverting edits, please start a discussion

I have made some edits, that removes content that simply refers to a volume or regulations. I would like to edit this document further to make it concise and properly referenced.

There's nothing wrong with citing regulations, indeed, in this sort of topic the regulations are very important. However, I agree that some sections are entirely unreferenced and should be removed to improve the article's concision. However, discuss here BEFORE removing the content - I have added it back for now, because you removed a lot of references that created errors in the cut-down version. Quasar G 18:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

However the regulations cited are the entire volume of regulations, so it is somewhat meaningless, There is a lot of factual information in the page, but also a lot of option that is simply referenced as a volume of regulations.

I will start my edits again, one by one, and attempt to provided specific references, not just a 1000pages...

The edits can then be disussed but please do not revert my entire effort!!!! thankyou

Actually, the reference cites a specific section of the regulations (Part 23 and Part 25, § 149), so please do not remove any material that is relevant and supported by this reference. Also remember to sign your edits by typing four tildes (~~~~) Quasar G 18:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok I can see he has referenced § 149 but that is not the basis for an entire article. In other words many of the points made are not referenced properly at all! Anyway please allow me make my edits and discuss them individually instead of just making me start again! Junmping in and simply reverting someone work without some justification is not appropriate.

I agree that nobody should blind revert, and that is not what I was doing. I suggest you propose an edit here, then it can be discussed before the edit is made. By the way, thanks for taking an interest in Wikipediaa and discussing this with civility, rather than edit warring. IPs like you are, unfortunately, rare. Quasar G 19:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

IP: One, unexplained edits may be indistinguishable from vandalism, especially when large amounts of content are removed. Two, the only edit summary in your first edit was "Concise summary", which is meaningless when you removed such a large amount of content, along with the automatic Tag: "references removed". I reverted on that basis, as I'm sure the other editor did also. Quasar has mentioned the references issues, and concur those are problematic. - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

BilCat, yes but the sequence was... I made a good faith edit, with an explanation. Arjayay just reverted it with no explanation... I put it back, you then reverted it again simply citing Arjayay as your the reason for your edit... I made further good faith edits with explanations. Quasar just jumps in reverts the lot...

I propose to make my edits again, keeping in mind the considerations raised here. If there are issues with my edits please start a discussion on this page. Thankyou for your consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.35.149 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to take Quasar G.'s advice here, and propose your changes on the talk page before going live on the article. Additionally, you need to sign your talk page comments. You were reverted in this case for a significant loss of valuable information, multiple grammatical mistakes, and lack of clarity. Propose your changes here, so they can be discussed prior to publication. Scr★pIron 21:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• B-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/31 October 2013
• Accepted AfC submissions