The article went through FAC recently, where it was tweaked and improved with the much-appreciated help of several editors with FA expertise. Hopefully it is now ready. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I worked with Crum375 to resolve my issues during the last FAC and further after it was archived. Everything I had was fully resolved. --Andy Walsh(talk)21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concern has been resolved as well. Some references are still missing access dates, but that's it. An excellent piece of work on a most unpleasant subject. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment and all the help. Regarding access dates, my own rule is to include accessdate on any online citation which is not a reliable news site. In the case of news sites, they have a publication date, and the main issue there (and elsewhere) is link rot, which is very frustrating. Almost every couple of days a link either dies or goes into a subscription-only mode. I have just re-run the link checker and fixed the broken links, so we are OK for the moment. Some links have been picked up by archive.org, but many haven't, so it's an ongoing battle. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"new owners/operators"—is there an alternative to the slash? I think MoS says to try to minimise, especially when it's not a toggle situation. There's another slashed couplet further down.
I hate them too, but I can't think of a way to get rid of them without either losing information (e.g. drop "operators"), or making it more cumbersome (e.g. "owners and operators"). Any suggestion is more than welcome. (The other instance further down is "passenger/journalist", and there is also one "and/or", for a total of three slashes in the main text.) Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your last suggestion is best, since "and" makes a long sentence even longer. Using plain "ExcelAir", as you suggest, is also a compromise since it adds repetition and provides slightly less information, but on the whole it may be best, so I put it in. Crum375 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I normally ask for items to be delinked, but here, BST could do with one, if there's a useful, focused page at hand.
BST is simply linked (to UTC-3) in the lead, for brevity. Then, when it first appears in the body, it is presented as "BST (Brazil Standard Time)". A footnote goes on to explain: "All times mentioned in this article are Brazil Standard Time, UTC-3, unless otherwise noted." All subsequent occurrences of BST are unlinked. Are you suggesting a different strategy? Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for not following. Does "sure" mean the BST presentation/linking strategy is OK as it is, or do you think it needs modification? If the latter, can you elaborate? Crum375 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the first instance in the body to your order (acronym second). The problem with doing the full expansion in the lead is that the lead sentences are very complex already, and adding a full acronym expansion there with those extra words, for something which is of trivial significance, reduces legibility for no real gain. Instead, it's simply wiki-linked in that lead sentence, and has the full expansion (and an explanatory footnote) where it's first mentioned in the body, where there is more "space". But having said that, if others here think the full acronym should be expanded in the lead sentence, I'll defer to their judgment. Crum375 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Embraer jet, despite sustaining serious damage to the left horizontal stabilizer and left winglet, was able to continue flying, though its autopilot disengaged and it required an unusual amount of force on the yoke to keep the wings level." Didn't like that sentence much: two contrastives in "despite" and "though". "sustaining" could be removed.
"Immediately after the Embraer's emergency landing at the Cachimbo air base, BAF and Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC) officials detained and interviewed its flight crew.[14] The officials also removed the two "black boxes"—Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR)—from the Embraer, and sent them to São José dos Campos, São Paulo, and eventually Ottawa, Canada, for analysis." But perhaps this? "Immediately after the Embraer's emergency landing at the Cachimbo air base, BAF and Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC) officials detained and interviewed its flight crew,[14] and three days later removed the two "black boxes" (the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder), sending them to São José dos Campos, São Paulo and eventually Ottawa, Canada, for analysis." Unsure. And possibly "later" instead of "eventually", which implies a delay.
I believe the Embraer's boxes were sent to São Paulo immediately, not after three days. I have changed it to the following, to eliminate the perception of a delay:『The officials also removed the two 'black boxes'—Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR)—from the Embraer, and sent them to São José dos Campos, São Paulo, and from there to Ottawa, Canada for analysis.』Is it any better? Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
charged by Brazilian Federal Police with "endangering an aircraft", a charge that carries a penalty of ... — do check for repetitions like this; possibly ", which carries ..."?
Can you check that every abbreviation is used enough to bother the readers thus? I see that Cockpit Voice Recorder is spelled out after I've coded CVR from a previous section. Is it worth it?
I have removed the expanded form of CVR in the "Recommendation" section. In the case of other abbreviations, such as "FDR", they are defined not just for usage within the article text, but also for possible use inside the references or footnotes. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"state of manufacture" × 2 in the same sentence. Please audit for this type of thing.
Here is the full sentence: The NTSB, in accordance with the provisions of ICAO Annex 13, participated in the investigation representing the state of manufacture of the Boeing, state of registry and operator of the Embraer, and state of manufacture of the Honeywell avionics equipment installed in both planes.[2] The goal of this paragraph is to explain the legal connections of the NTSB to the accident, prioritized by importance. We need to get across that the NTSB was legally the SOM of the Boeing, SOR of the Embraer and its operators, and SOM of the Honeywell avionics on both the Boeing and the Embraer. The connection to the two aircraft is mentioned first, because it is the most important, and within that, SOM is more important than SOR. Then the (less important) avionics is mentioned, which applies to both aircraft. If we somehow combined the two concepts, e.g. "SOM of the Boeing and the Honeywell avionics on both aircraft", it would have three drawbacks: it would lose the logical presentation order (aircraft first, then equipment); it would refer to the Embraer before it's defined in that context; and it would (arguably) be overall more cumbersome. I am open to suggestions, however. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined a few more. As I see it, para "choppiness" is a balance between separating distinct ideas and creating visual clutter. For example, in the "Embraer flight and communication sequence" section, there is a chronological description of events, and lumping too many of them into a single paragraph would be confusing and reduce legibility. If you have any specific paras which you feel can be merged with no harm, let me know or feel free to fix them. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:H4-BRS.jpg: File:DOD-H4.pdf is gone; please supply the link to the page where the document is hosted to allow verification that this extract is from American federal material.
The original site where it was hosted in 2006 is no longer there. I have kept the original high resolution PDF file, though, which is clearly marked as U.S. Fed. Gov. material. I can email the file to anyone interested (it's 4.3 MB). There was also a discussion thread with Steve Smith about it in the previous FAC. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would put it that the original authors are the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.[2] Some sites with the Enroute Charts.[3][4] Do you still have the original url (web.archive.org might have archived the link)? Failing that, please format the source properly with details using {{Cite journal}}, {{Cite book}}, or provide the full title, publisher, date, author (if any specific), and document number (if any) instead of the filename. Jappalang (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the redlink from the source and added all available publication info, using the {{citation}} template (since it's not a book or a journal). I did this for both this image as well as the H4-Teres extract below. The PDF file, which is a high resolution digital version of the Enroute High Altitude chart, has the following on the information side panel: "(c) Copyright 2006 by the United States Government. No copyright claimed under Title 17 U.S.C. DOD Flight Information Publication. Enroute High Altitude Caribbean and South America. H3-H4." I can't find the original URL where it was hosted. Although you could well be right that the NGIA produced it, there is nothing on the chart to indicate that (it just says "DOD" generically). Crum375 (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written and informative. Covers all the main aspects of the event. My only complaint would be to merge some of the very short paragraphs, particularly in the lower mid sections.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat10:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I hate visual clutter too, but I try to keep separate ideas physically separate. Can you list specific sentences that you feel can be merged without forcing disjointed ideas together? Crum375 (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
