Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pan Am Flight 7/archive1

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 promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2022 [1].

---

Pan Am Flight 7

Nominator(s): RecycledPixels (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 7 is about an airline flight from San Francisco to Honolulu that never reached its destination. The article describes the flight, important details about the aircraft, the enormous search and rescue operation that was carried out when contact was lost with the aircraft, and details of the investigation that was carried out using a few pieces of recovered wreckage and the remains of a few of the victims. To this day, the cause of the crash has never been determined. Although there have been various theories, this incident remains an unsolved mystery.

After its initial expansion and rewrite, the article appeared on the WP front page's Did You Know? section. It later received a GA review by @The Rambling Man: and was promoted, and after a couple years of rest, recently finished a Peer review where @Zetana: and @Gerald Waldo Luis: jumped in and made some helpful suggestions for improvement. And course, there have been dozens of other editors who have made improvements and suggestions in the past couple of years. At this point, I feel it's ready to appear on the main page in the Featured Article slot. Do you? RecycledPixels (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Image and source pass

Images have appropriate purpose, caption, alt, and licenses. Sources are all reliable and I have archived them, except for Google Books as it's naturally unarchivable. I will be posting comments soon, though it will definitely be short since most of my concerns have been addressed at the PR. GeraldWL 07:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• This would be RecycledPixels' first FA so a source check will be needed as well, assuming that the nomination gets supports. (t · c) buidhe 10:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have checked all the sources during the PR, they all support the claims of the article and has nothing wrong. If that's what you mean by source check. GeraldWL 10:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by Heartfox

• Why aren't the Newspapers.com links clippings so everyone can view them instead of just those with a subscription? I'm also confused by the date formatting. The prose uses month-first but the references are day-first. The article was first written using month-first and the first reference used month first so as a reader this inconsistency is a bit odd, especially the refs are not using year-month-day. Heartfox (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Date format changed to be consistent m-d-y. GeraldWL 01:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• My initial response to the newspapers.com clipping issue was, first, that it wasn't possible to do that for articles spanning multiple pages, and second, that the publisher preferred that I link directly to their page since I've obtained my Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library. However, in searching for some answers, I found some enlightenment on the WP:Newspapers.com page that showed that I was wrong on both parts, so I'll put some time into converting those reference URL links into clippings that can be accessed by anyone. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I created a newspapers.com clip for the first reference in the list just as a test, and it doesn't look like it is worth the effort involved. The clip is here so you can see what I mean. The article, which is nearly a full page, when you view the clip, is so tiny that it is impossible to read. The only way I see to increase the size is to click on the article image, which takes me to my newspapers.com account so I can zoom in, which is the same exact page I had originally linked. If I go in private browsing mode, when I click on the image, I'm prompted to sign up for a Newspapers.com account if I want to zoom in. So I don't think the clippings feature is an improvement, and will hold off converting more unless there is a compelling argument that doing so is an improvement. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That's an issue for articles spanning multiple columns, but it's not an issue for articles that are one or a few columns wide—which is most articles. Also, for multiple pages, you can do references like this: "Busy Summer is in Sight for Many Carolina Profs". UNC News. Vol. 1, no. 3. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 23 June 1960. pp. 4–5. Archived from the original on 30 March 2021 – via Newspapers.com. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by SandyGeorgia

• "At the time of Flight 7, he had accumulated 11,314 hours of flight experience ... " makes no sense; Flight 7 was a regularly scheduled flight (it operated more than once). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, I think you might've misunderstood the sentence. What it means is, as of the date of Pan Am 7, the pilot had flown for 11,314 hours in total. GeraldWL 03:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Convert? "The flight plan called for a cruising altitude of 10,000 feet ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Done.

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. The article is well-written and concise. I have a couple of suggestions that don't affect my support.

• There's an article in the San Francisco Examiner for November 10 that gives some human interest background on the passengers; I had a look through it to see if there was anything worth including. I think it might be worth mentioning that two entire families were killed in the crash.

  I've used that article as a reference in a couple of the crew members, so there is a link to it in the references from the article. There is a longstanding convention in the Aviation WikiProject to not name any of the occupants of the aircraft except the flight crew or people who are notable enough to have their own WP article. RecycledPixels (talk)

• The evidence of carbon monoxide poisoning seems definite enough to mention in the lead, and I think the information about William Payne's insurance could also be mentioned in the lead.

  It's one of several theories, none of which could definitely be pointed out as the primary cause of the accident. None of them are mentioned in the lead, because they're all reasonable guesses but with no conclusive evidence as to which one is true. The talk page of the article includes a similar discussion I had with someone else about a month or so ago. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

OK on both points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

* I feel like "The flight's fate" and beyond can be given its own paragraph, to give it a sense of equality. Right now, it's 9 lines vs 4 lines. Breaking that apart can make it 3v6v4. I also think the whole search merits its own paragraph; the first paragraph will thus be a kind of encapsulation of what happened to the plane. "Honolulu from San Francisco" --> "Honolulu from San Francisco" "recovered about 900 miles (1,400 km) northeast of Honolulu." Link Honolulu here The map can be given a caption saying "Map showing the flight's origin, planned destination, and crash site" or of the sort "and New York City before"-- add comma between "City" and "before" "Honolulu International Airport" --> "Daniel K. Inouye International Airport, located at Honolulu, Hawaii" The airport wasn't renamed Daniel K. Inouye International Airport until 2016. Between 1951 and 2016 it was the Honolulu International Airport. But wikilinks exist to the airport article, where readers can familiarize themselves with the airport and its history if needed. RecycledPixels (talk) "Romance of the Skies" --> "Clipper Romance of the Skies" "Pan Am notified the Coast Guard" --> "Pan Am notified the United States Coast Guard" United States Coast Guard is linked at the first use in the lead section. Done. "in more than ninety minutes" --> "in more than 90 minutes" "After another ninety minutes" --> "After another 90 minutes" You are inconsistent with your referrals to the Coast Guard; sometimes it's "the Cost Guard", at others its "the U.S. Coast Guard". Corrected. The first usage in the article, in the lead section, is identified and spelled out as United States Coast Guard. All subsequent references use "Coast Guard". RecycledPixels (talk) Link Pacific Ocean Pacific Ocean linked at first use in the lead section. RecycledPixels (talk) Done. "ordered the USS Philippine Sea"-- drop the "the" per the article, which doesn't use "the". As well as for "the USS John R. Craig and the USS Orleck", as well as "commander of the Philippine Sea". "the Navy" --> "the United States Navy" "Upolu Point" --> "ʻUpolu Point" At "eight coast guard vessels", it must be "Coast Guard" "On November 14, the crew of a Navy search plane observed wreckage and bodies in the water, about 900 miles (1,400 km) northeast of Honolulu, and about 90 miles (140 km) north of the flight's intended track." I think you can move [6]:2 to the next sentence, then remove the [18] ref in this sentence. Link Rear admiral (United States) "Investigations by the CAB" --> "Investigations by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)" CAB acronym introduced and linked in the lead section, all other uses of Civil Aeronautics Board used CAB. RecycledPixels (talk) Done. Link Amazon basin, decapitalize "B" "noting in his report that "you could duplicate loud noise by stepping hard on door between cockpit and cargo. Also loud bang could be duplicated by dropping forward toilet lid."" This can be paraphrased to "arguing in his report that the noises can be duplicated." "Pan Am Flight 6, the Sovereign of the Skies, ditches" --> "Pan Am Flight 6, whose aircraft was named the Sovereign of the Skies, ditching" Remove link to Honolulu International Airport, remove "International Airport" for consistency "The captain of the flight was Gordon H. Brown, age 40, who had been flying for Pan Am since his 1942 graduation from Northeastern University. At the time of Flight 7, he had accumulated 11,314 hours of flight experience, including 674 hours in the Stratocruiser. The first officer of the flight, William P. Wygant, was 37 and had been employed with the company since 1946. He had a total of 7,355 flying hours, including 4,018 on the Stratocruiser." Remove the references in these sentences, as they're covered in the next sentence. As well as in "He had a total of 2,683 flight hours, including 1,552 in the Stratocruiser." Left the first one in because part of that sentence was sourced to the San Francisco Examiner article and the information was not duplicated in the CAB report. RecycledPixels (talk) "Second officer William H. Fortenberry, acting as pilot-navigator on the flight, had worked for Pan Am since 1951 since graduating from Spartanburg Community College in South Carolina." Move the ref 28 to the final sentence, remove all references, in this sentence. Same issue with Fortenberry, with one part cited from the SF Examiner article, which contains a fair amount of "human interest" details about the crew members that I didn't feel was relevant enough to include in the article, but may interest someone who looks up that reference. RecycledPixels (talk) I have addressed and/or responded to the comments so far in this section. Let me know if you would like to discuss it further. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Before I move on with my last batch of comments, I'd like to say that the lead is different from the body. Leads are like summaries of an article, whereas body is the core content. So even if the lead does link to the CAB, it must be repeated again in the first mention of it in the body. Other GAs and FAs have also followed this style, and you have too in a way: you linked Pan Am in the first section despite there being a mention in the lead. GeraldWL 01:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Ok, I took another look at WP:REPEATLINK and saw the mention that an object may be linked a second time in its first use after the lead section, so I've adjusted those responses and made those changes. Thanks. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Awesome! Only thing I did left to resolve this first batch is extending "Coast Guard" in the first body mention. Now moving on the last batch. GeraldWL 08:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC) "By the time the carrier returned".. "the carrier" can be trimmed to "it" since "the carrier" has been mentioned a few words ago. "an engine cowl support ring"-- you mean Towned ring? I believe you meant to link to Townend ring. No. See Cowling for a description of an engine cowling. I've seen "cowl" and "cowling" used interchangeably in aviation writing, I used the word "cowl" because that is what the original source used. I assume that an engine cowl support ring is something that attaches the cowl to the airframe although I have not specifically researched what the exact part is. I can link "engine cowl" to the cowling article for clarity, though. RecycledPixels (talk) "Representatives from the airline" --> "Representatives from Pan Am" "In their investigation, CAB officials".. "officials" --> "investigators" for consistency "levels of carbon monoxide in 14".. "in" --> "within" Not done, "in" is a better preposition in this case. "Investigators conducted".. "Investigators" --> "CAB investigators" since it's the first mention in the paragraph. You often switch between "the CAB" and "CAB". Must be consistent. When used as a noun, it is "the CAB", as in "The CAB concluded that that the somewhat cursory investigations...". When used as an adjective, as in "CAB Investigators found several instances..." there is no "the" preceding it. I wasn't able to find any inconsistencies there, and the Civil Aeronautics Board article uses "The CAB" when using CAB as a noun (except for one inconsistency in the "offices" section) and "CAB" as an adjective, as in "CAB Chairman". Link turbocharger "In 1958, the following year" --> "In 1958, a year after the crash of Flight 7" "The passenger, William Payne, 41, of Scott Bar, California" --> "The passenger, a 41-year-old man from Scott Bar, California named William Payne" I think you can put the inflation adjustments as footnotes, since they're merely inflations and it makes the prose unecessarily longer; those who want to know can hover over the Efn. That's all I have for this article; if all of them are resolved I'll support. GeraldWL 07:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Thanks again, I've implemented those suggestions or responded here to a couple that I didn't implement. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: in case you didn't see my response. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry there, the watchlist got piled with other stuff that I didn't see this. It looks all good for me now, so I'm supporting this FAC. GeraldWL 01:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from TRM

• "a massive search" seems a little POV/tone problem.

  Changed "massive" to "extensive".

• Honolulu is linked twice in the lead but to different targets, I would suggest expanding the airport link(s) to avoid confusion.

  The link to the airport was an edit suggested by Gerald Waldo Luis in this FAC. I prefer the visible wording of Honolulu and San Francisco but he suggested linking it to the airport instead of the city. I didn't see a problem with that, but I don't want the long names of the airports to appear in the first sentence of the article, because it's just clutter to me and a bit over-precise. When I get on a plane to fly to Honolulu, I don't say I'm going to the Honolulu Airport, I say I'm going to Honolulu. So not sure how to address this suggestion.

  My only guide is to not have two different articles piped to the same visible text. It's not fair on our readers. By all means reword it accordingly, even just adding "airport" or something. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Changed it to the names of the airports involved. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Infobox, not seeing in ref 1 the exact geolocation of the crash mentioned?

  The wrong source is cited. The final CAB report gives a probable point of impact on page 5, and that is probably where ASN got the coordinates, that don't appear in the current version of the page. I have updated the citation for those coordinates.

• That ref also says 937 miles/1500 km which is a bit more than the values mentioned in the lead.

  That's wrong, see next comment.

• Isn't the crash site "approximate"? I assume that since it took several days, the wreckage/bodies etc could have moved by dozens of miles?

  So there are actually two data points here that have problems in the article. The first is where the Philippine Sea found the bodies and the wreckage, which the Oakland Tribune article cited in the body describes as "about 900 miles northeast of Honolulu" and the CAB report on page 2 describes as "some 940 miles east of Honolulu and 90 miles north of the flight's intended track". Later in the CAB report (page 5) we find that the wreckage was found at 29° 36'N, 144° 3'W. (29.60, -144.05 in decimal notation). Diving into OR-land, I used an online distance calculator, and using 21.332689, -157.919769 as the coordinates of the Honolulu Airport, I end up with a distance of 899 nautical miles (1034 miles, 1664 km). The CAB report (also page 5) further gives a probable location of the actual point of impact of 29° 26'N, 143° 34' W (29.434, -143.567), based on known ocean current vectors and reported winds. That's 916 nm from Honolulu airport, (1054 mi, 1696 km). What I don't know is whether the distances "from Honolulu" describe the distance from the Honolulu Airport, the geographic center of the city, the edge of the city, or some other location near Honolulu. None of the sources specify, so "about 900 miles" is about as close as I'm comfortable specifying. But looking into these questions has identified that the CAB report is reporting in nautical miles, so my conversions were all wrong, so I'm updating the article accordingly. I don't think the difference between "about 900 nautical miles" and "916 nautical miles from Honolulu Airport" is significant enough to affect the understanding of the article, and the more precise figures should raise WP:OR concerns. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• The "10–29" suffix to the aircraft type is only in the infobox, I suggest it's in the prose too.
• Could link flight plan.
• "10,000 feet (3.0 km) " I know Sandy asked for conversion (and I know we know that flight altitudes are always given in feet) but I suggest the conversion be made to metres rather than km.

  Lol...I didn't see that!

• "aircraft from Honolulu conducted" could link actual Honolulu here as the first time after the lead.
• "was just malfunctioning" no need for "just".
• "anti-submarine planes" is there a link?

  Not that I could find. I figured if there is one, it would be in the Lockheed P-3 Orion article, and I don't see anything like that other than generic Anti-submarine warfare.

• "ordered USS John R. Craig and" this is piped to a redirect back to itself?

  Almost, except there is markup in it to italicize the name of the ship (but not USS) that would break the hyperlink. I kept the pipe but moved the link from the redirect to the actual article.

• "the most promising sign" again, POV/tone issues here, promising to whom?
• Both 500 kHz and International distress frequency have articles, worth linking for me.
• What's a "dye marker"?

  Linked to distress signal#Maritime. It's a packet of brightly-colored dye that's put in the water that can be seen by aircraft for a short period of time (like 30 minutes).

• What are "merchant ships"?

  Linked.

• "about 900 miles (1,400 km) northeast" see earlier comment.
• " a Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" see above, should you add the 10-29 suffix here?

  Normally, I wouldn't, but since this section is a fairly technical discussion of the aircraft I added it.

• "Pan Am Flight 6, whose aircraft..." that caption is a fragment so no full stop.
• "was the second worst accident involving the Stratocruiser" ever or at the time?

  Both.

• Might link "centrifugal force".
• Probably should link "feathering" to something like Propeller (aeronautics)#Feathering.
• "The flight carried 36 passengers..." reinforce "Flight 7..." here as the previous para was about a totally different flight.
• "Thirty two of " don't we normally "Thirty-two" that?
• "The flight carried 36 passengers and 8 crew members on the flight to Honolulu.[6]: 1  Upon arrival, 20 of the passengers were scheduled to disembark, while 16 would have continued onward at least as far as Tokyo. At Honolulu, 17 passengers were waiting to board the plane for the next segment of the flight.[5] Thirty two of the passengers were from the United States, one was from Australia, one was from Japan, one was from Turkey, and one was from Indonesia.[26][27]" does the maths work here for these passenger numbers?

  Yes. When the plane crashed on the way from San Francisco to Honolulu, there were 36 passengers. 20 of them would have left the flight while 16 of them would have remained on for the next leg. 20 + 16 = still 36. After the 20 passengers left the flight, a different 17 passengers would have gotten on for the next leg, in addition to the ones who stayed on the plane. But they never did because the plane never arrived. Of the 36 passengers who crashed, 32 were from US, 1 from Australia, 1 from Japan, 1 from Turkey, 1 from Indonesia. Still 36. I changed the order of the sentences around to hopefully make it less confusing.

• "first officer" link?
• "since 1951 since" ugh, repetitive.
• Is there a link for Flight engineer?
• "flown to the carrier to begin" what carrier?

  Philippine Sea, identified in the previous sentence. Linked earlier in the article.

• "overhaul station" what's that?

  I'm guessing it's a maintenance facility for engine overhauls and other time-consuming repairs performed on aircraft, separate from where quick repairs and inspections would be performed. The CAB report uses the term "The Pan American overhaul base at San Francisco" while the San Francisco Examiner reference only called it "a warehouse at San Francisco International Airport".

• "embedded in a floating pillow" picky, but with all this technical talk, one might be convinced that a "floating pillow" was part of the aircraft, rather than an actual pillow which was floating on the surface of the water...

  I personally assumed it was more like a seat cushion that was designed to act as a floatation device as in modern aircraft, but "floating pillow" was as descriptive as the report got. A different article mentioned that seat cushions were recovered. I Reworded it.

• "one and a quarter pounds (1 kg) of" 1.25 lb -> around about 560g, not 1 kg.
• "debris came up negative" - "came up" is a little colloquial.
• "knocked unconscious or stunned by " is "stunned" a medical condition?

  The source doesn't get any more specific than being knocked unconscious or stunned by the crash. I assume "stunned" includes, for example, a traumatic brain injury that does not result in unconsciousness. Such an injury can leave the victim dazed and confused and unable to care for themselves. Another might be a spinal cord injury, but those are just guesses on my part. But basically I interpret it that the investigators were saying that the victims weren't necessarily unconscious when they drowned.

• "In 1949, Albert Guay had" maybe "Six years earlier", or pop these into chronological order?
• "a total of $230,000[b] in" put the inflation in the article, not a footnote (like the conversions).

  A different FAC reviewer suggested that putting them in footnotes would make the article less cluttered.

• "n 1958, a year after the crash of Flight 7, ..." why not "A year after the crash..."?
• "Helena, Montana had" comma after Montana.
• Inflate the following monetary values too.
• "from Scott Bar, California named" comma after Cali.
• "filed a $300,000[d] damage" see above.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I've addressed or commented on all off the items here. Thank you for the time looking at the article and for your feedback. If you see anything else or find something else I've missed, let me know. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Thanks so much for reviewing this article. Do you feel your comments were adequately addressed? (t · c) buidhe 18:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries, and yes, I'm content that my concerns have been addressed. Cheers, happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Harry

I know nothing of this particular incident, but I've watched a lot of Air Crash Investigation!

• There are some details that add words without improving the reader's understanding here: Admiral Felix Stump, commander-in-chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, ordered USS Philippine Sea to join the search from the port of Long Beach, California, with its helicopters and radar-equipped anti-submarine planes.[6] A few hours later, the United States Navy also ordered USS John R. Craig and USS Orleck to depart from San Diego to assist the search. You could lose almost all the names and places except the ships. Eg, "USS Philippine Sea joined the search from Long Beach, California, with its helicopters and radar-equipped anti-submarine planes. It was joined a few hours later by USS John R. Craig and USS Orleck to depart from San Diego". That reduces your word count by a third but doesn't remove any important detail.
• On June 18, 1957, it had suffered a runaway propeller as it departed San Francisco. The crew was unable to feather the propeller and performed an emergency landing back at San Francisco some redundancy/repetition that could be eliminated with careful copy editing.
• to determine if any of the passengers if → whether
• For what it's worth, I respectfully disagree with TRM and think the inflation sums work well in footnotes to avoid cluttering the prose.

Little to criticise really. A tidy article that does a good job of presenting the facts available. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I have made the changes you suggested. Let me know if you see anything else. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

One more query: should the ships have a definite article, eg the USS Philippine Sea? I don't know the answer to this and it doesn't affect my support. Just something to ponder. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The US Navy Style Guide says to not use "the" in front of a ship's name: "USS San Jose", not "the USS San Jose". I'm pretty sure this came up recently on one of the articles I had submitted for review, I just can't find it at the moment. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, here's what I was looking for... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Using ship names in articles. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.