Talk:1972 Sacramento Canadair Sabre accident

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Lee Vilenski in topic GA Review
Former good article nominee1972 Sacramento Canadair Sabre accident was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 27, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 4, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that 22 people were killed in 1972 when a Canadair Sabre crashed into an ice cream parlour in Sacramento?

Source

edit

Some of the text on the original version of this page is derived from this version of the Farrell's Ice Cream Parlour article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Expansion

edit

There's some good stuff to help expand the article here at the Sacramento Bee archives. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1972 Sacramento Canadair Sabre accident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

22 or 23 dead in disaster

edit

A web news source brings list of casualities with these 23 names (23 and not 22): Kristin "Kristi" Dawn Francis; ‎ Billie Gertrude Irwin; ‎ Elaine June Jugum; ‎ Louis "Bud" Jugum; ‎ Nancy Teresa Keys; ‎ Sally Ann Keys; ‎ Brandon Warren Krier; ‎ Jennifer Ann Krier; ‎ Sandra Ann Creasey Krier; ‎ Warren Krier; ‎ Gene Wilson Lavine; ‎ Margaret May Lavine; ‎ Anthony Lloyd Martin; ‎ Gregory Gene Martin; ‎ Jeanene Louise Martin; ‎ Shawn Anthony Martin; ‎ Sue Martin; ‎ Gary Wayne Nash; ‎ Jeffrey Allen Nash; ‎ Nancy Ann Rodriguez; ‎ Joan Southwick Bacci; ‎ Ellen Warram; ‎ Leon Warram

With 22 or 23 dead victims, the word disaster might be better than accident.-Yohananw (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article already says that an addition death occured after the accident, but it was not officialy caused or was a result of the accident which probably where the 23rd name comes from. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Just checked "Billie Irwin" was the victim of the road accident and she appears in your list as the "23rd" victim. MilborneOne (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Survivor"?

edit

Assuming that not everyone who was present in the ice-cream parlor, on the road, or otherwise in the path of the jet was injured or killed in the crash, how is it that the list of "survivors" includes only the pilot? If I was the single person in the ice cream parlor who escaped unscathed, I'd expect to be on the list of survivors. Are not the people who avoided being hit on the road survivors? Especially the people in the car that was struck, assuming they weren't killed. Actually come to think of it, isn't a list showing "23 injured, 22 killed, 1 survivor" kind of flawed in an elementary way? The injured were all survivors of the disaster, even if you don't want to count the numerous people who escaped death or injury even though they were present. I assume what is meant is that "one person onboard the aircraft survived", but it ought to be made more clear.


Idumea47b (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:1972 Sacramento Canadair Sabre accident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

edit

Prose

edit

Lede

edit

General

edit

Review meta comments

edit
Lee, I will get to these comments but as you can tell, the article wasn't quite as good as I had thought, so there's plenty to do. I'll pick the issues off one at a time and get back to you when I'm properly done. Thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Never a hurry for you, friend. There is quite a bit to do, and I know you've got a lot on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi The Rambling Man, any chance I can close this one? Or were you planning on updating the article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Lee Vilenski yes, fail it please. I was far too optimistic that work I'd done a decade ago was up to today's standards! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for understanding. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit