Talk:N661US

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

A fact from N661US appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 April 2024, and was viewed approximately 8,985 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that N661US (pictured) was the prototype Boeing 747-400 and was involved in the Northwest Airlines Flight 85 incident, in which the aircraft suddenly banked hard to the left in flight?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/N661US.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 12:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

N661US, the prototype 747-400

... that N661US (pictured) was the prototype Boeing 747-400 and flew more than 61 million miles (98 million kilometers) over 25 years of service before being put on display in a museum? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220627143826/https://news.delta.com/retired-747-400-takes-road-trip-home-flight-museum
ALT1: ... that N661US (pictured) was the prototype Boeing 747-400 and was involved in the Northwest Airlines Flight 85 incident, where the aircraft suddenly banked hard to the left when the rudder jammed in flight?
ALT2: ... that N661US (pictured) was the prototype Boeing 747-400 and was involved in the Northwest Airlines Flight 85 incident, in which the aircraft suddenly banked hard to the left in flight?
- Reviewed: A-Channel

Created by RickyCourtney (talk). Self-nominated at 19:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/N661US; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

I imagine a hook about Northwest Airlines Flight 85 would be a better option given how heroic that event was. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your suggestion, I've added an ALT1 focused on the Northwest Airlines Flight 85 incident. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Adequate sourcing: the second paragraph in the "Northwest Airlines Flight 85" section lacks any citations, so this holds up the nomination. Also, there is at least one fact in the lead section that is I cannot find supported anywhere in the body: "The problem was blamed on metal fatigue". The entire last paragraph is supported by a dead link, but I am assuming good faith on that. Other: This doesn't hold up the nomination, but the first sentence of the lead section is pretty confusing. I highly recommend rewriting it. Hook: ALT1 is too long, so I wrote out ALT2, which is still supported by in-line citations in the article. I didn't check the citation for the original hook. Conclusion If you like my ALT2 hook and you take care of the two issues on adequate sourcing, then this nomination will be good to proceed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dugan Murphy, thank you for your comments. I have added a source for the metal fatigue, rewrote the first sentence and fixed the dead refs. Also, I like your ALT2. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I believe this nomination is now good to proceed with ALT2. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy and RickyCourtney: Because the reviewer proposed ALT2 we need a new reviewer. I also added a ^{[citation needed]} tag which needs to be resolved before promotion or approval. Bruxton (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: The requested citation has been added. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: Can you point to where in the DYK guidelines it says that a second reviewer is needed? To the contrary, at the bottom of WP:DYKRI it says: "Nominators are encouraged to work with reviewers to come up with hooks that meet the standards of the DYK process, and new alternate hooks can be proposed by anyone (nominator, reviewer, other third party) in an effort to produce at least one viable hook." Based on that, I would say this nomination is safe to proceed unless you think there is an issue with hook ALT2. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3: ... that N661US (pictured) was the prototype Boeing 747-400 and was later involved in a near miss incident in which the aircraft suddenly banked hard to the left?

See above a proposed amended version of ALT2, which should be somewhat clearer. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: I don't think a new hook alternative is needed. Furthermore, the article doesn't refer to the incident as a near miss, so I'm not sure that term is appropriate for the hook. I am nevertheless open to an argument that it is, especially if RickyCourtney thinks so. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to you and others, but as a non-specialist in this topic, the words "suddenly banked hard to the left" were not very interesting on their own - on their own, the phrase doesn't quite communicate the seriousness of the incident. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy: We have discussed this a length on WT:DYK basically the language is in WP:DYKRR

You're not allowed to approve your own hook

. When I discussed a nominator approving a reviewers it was agreed that that runs afoul of the rule. Bruxton (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: Thank you for pointing that out! I had no idea. RickyCourtney and I will await another reviewer to approve one of these hooks. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not approving any hook with the phrase "near miss". What else have you got?--Laun chba ller 19:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: RickyCourtney (the nominator) and I (the original reviewer) settled on ALT2, but we need a second reviewer's approval to proceed. What do you think about ALT2? Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 short enough, cited, and interesting. If I was proposing the hook myself, I might link "the prototype Boeing 747-400" to N661US and the flight to "an incident in which the aircraft suddenly banked hard to the left in flight", thereby taking both titles out of the hook, but ALT2 as proposed is good to go. Let's roll.--Laun chba ller 12:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Total hours

Do I even need to say any more? The Total hours (flown) is not '61 million' - that would require staying in the air, 24 hours a day, for almost 7,000 years.

I tried editing the Infobox, but it appears that is beyond my novice capabilities. As this is a very recently published article, I'm sure the original editor is lurking nearby, ready to change the line to Total miles flown = 61 million (as mentioned above) WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Changed. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]