Talk:American Airlines Flight 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are the requirements for very good articles:

  1. The article must be about a subject which belongs in Wikipedia. There is no use improving articles that do not belong here, and better fit another wiki, like Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wiktionary, etc.
     Done - obviously notable.
  2. The article must be comprehensive. A comprehensive article is not missing any major facts and details.
     Done covers all major aspects.
  3. The article must have a certain length. A minimum is 5 kilobytes, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories. There is no use in denoting very short articles as very good.
     Done - article is 7.17Kb (according to this as of The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  4. The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. No one writes perfect articles.
     Done - more than one editor plus 87 revisions.
  5. The article must be placed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link.
     Done - categorised and interwiki linked.
  6. The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing).
     Done - last few were linking and tidying text.
  7. All important terms should be linked and there must be no red links left. Red links point to articles that do not exist yet. Usually the important word or phrase is only linked the first time it occurs.
     Done - no red links.
  8. If there are any illustrations, they must be pertinent to the article. They must also be properly labelled.
     Done - illustrated and labelled.
  9. There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. These templates include {{complex}}, {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}. The article also should not need them.
     Done - no templates.
  10. Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. This can either be done with <ref>..</ref><references/> tags, or as a list of publications. For articles that have references or external links on the English Wikipedia, there must be at least one in the Simple English article as well.
     Done - 37 correctly formatted references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Perhaps wikilink "endanger" and "capture" (in the context of images).
    •  Done - endanger now links out to wiktionary and I've reword the "capture", hopefully simplified. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Explain what a tail number is (red link in the template).
  • At first glance, it looks a little short.
    •  Comment: - but it meets the criterion for length easily and covers all the major aspects - can you be specific on where you think it's missing detail? I started with the English Wikipedia article and simplified it - I didn't miss anything important out. The en-wiki article is a Featured Article by the way (their version of a VGA), so it's a pretty good starting point! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's just a gut feeling at present, I probably wouldn't oppose on the grounds of length. I'll take a closer look at it later. Hippopotamus (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Hippopotamus (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Complex[change source]

I believe some of the language is still complex and needs to be toned down. Words like "announcement" "deliberately" "impossible" "collapsed" "medical examiners" "identified" "organized" strike me as being a bit complex. Cassandra 04:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine, thanks. I'll go over it again! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. announcement has been rephrased.
  2. deliberately has gone.
  3. impossible has been rephrased.
  4. collapsed is wikt linked so I think that's fine.
  5. medical examiners is gone.
  6. identify is wikt linked.
  7. organized has been rephrased.
Any more? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good for now, I'll give you a heads up if I find anything more. Thanks for a prompt and speedy fixing of the perceived complex language. Cassandra 07:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for a constructive review which has made the article better. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too simple[change source]

He said he believed the towers would collapse.

According to the en article, this isn't true. He said, "I was thinking that the fire would....collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only." Cassandra 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting then, because it means en wiki has conflicting information - the AA11 article (which I "simplified") says what I wrote. I'll look into it further. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even better. The source, as you pointed out, says "...due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for. " so I'll rephrase that. Good spot, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little QA: references out of date-dead links[change source]

It seems like the following references are dead: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34 and need to be refreshed to keep this at VGA. This is not an article I especially feel like working on, but if someone does, it needs some maintenance. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]