Talk:2010 Air Service Berlin Douglas C-47 crash
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 February 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by YSSYguy (talk · contribs) on 21 June 2010 with the comment: Notability not established It was contested by 86.31.208.131 (talk · contribs) on 2010-06-21 with the comment: Meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria A3 (and possibly A5) and P1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- Deprod was by User:Mjroots who didn't realise he'd been logged out
Gail Halvorsen
editThe use of Gail Halvorsen's statement of his intention to donate $100 is in accordance with WP:SPS and does not fail as a blog source. The inclusion of the actual amount was proposed by myself at WT:AV, where another editor expressed the opinion that the source was useable. I have given it a separate reference to the main Aviation Herald article due to its position within that article. Mjroots (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Sequence: it was reported when?
editHi. At the moment the article says "Shortly after take-off from Berlin Schönefeld Airport on a local sightseeing flight,[3] it was reported that the port engine failed and the aircraft was unable to gain height. "
I've got a slight problem with this but I don't want to try to fix it as I don't know the sources or the author's intent. I find it's currently ambiguous. It could mean:
- A report was made shortly after take-off concerning the engine failure (presumably by the aircraft) or
- A report was made that the engine failed shortly after take-off etc. This report was made at an unspecified time, presumably later.
Do you see what I am getting at here? I know it sounds a bit trivial (but hey, look around you); nevertheless I feel there's a bit of a difference in possible meanings here and it would be great to clarify which one is correct. For what (very little) it's worth, my guess/feeling is that at the moment it reads like (1) but the truth is (2) - we are referring to a later report. But you may know better - either way, it would be great to nail it down one way or t'other and say goodbye to Mr Ambiguity. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)