Although I habitually list single-source problems as "verifiability", they really bear on all the review criteria except maybe style. In this case, NPOV is particularly relevant.
I thought a lot about the sourcing on this. All but the last two paragraphs (the bottom of the inverted pyramid, least important material) are taken from the FAA press release; and none of the other sources really given any hint of the focus; there's no mention of the D.C. metroplex in any other source.
It is sometimes possible to satisfy the multi-source requirement with sources most of which precede the event and make clear that it was (presumably) going to happen, and just one source actually testifying that it really did happen. However in these cases a significant part of the information is drawn from the earlier sources.
This, and the earlier NextGen article, suffers from a single-perspective bias, pro-FAA propaganda by the FAA. I have no idea what critics say about NextGen, but I'm aware that I'm not going to hear anything but praise for it from the FAA, and that makes me uncomfortable.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Although I habitually list single-source problems as "verifiability", they really bear on all the review criteria except maybe style. In this case, NPOV is particularly relevant.
I thought a lot about the sourcing on this. All but the last two paragraphs (the bottom of the inverted pyramid, least important material) are taken from the FAA press release; and none of the other sources really given any hint of the focus; there's no mention of the D.C. metroplex in any other source.
It is sometimes possible to satisfy the multi-source requirement with sources most of which precede the event and make clear that it was (presumably) going to happen, and just one source actually testifying that it really did happen. However in these cases a significant part of the information is drawn from the earlier sources.
This, and the earlier NextGen article, suffers from a single-perspective bias, pro-FAA propaganda by the FAA. I have no idea what critics say about NextGen, but I'm aware that I'm not going to hear anything but praise for it from the FAA, and that makes me uncomfortable.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
I added some more sources and added more info which would hopefully make this news article more neutral. I typed the last two paragraphs and their sources because one of them still mentions thing relatd to the NextGen project and the other one mentions how the weather could still impact air travel in this region while this new technology is in place. —Sam.gov (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One might have juggled the choice of focus a bit, since the statement on Sunday said something would happen and the one on Tuesday said it had happened.
Seems like it would really be good to work some information about criticism of NextGen into the discussion, especially if we have a continuing series of articles about NextGen. (One more and we'd have the usual number to creat a category for NextGen.)
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
One might have juggled the choice of focus a bit, since the statement on Sunday said something would happen and the one on Tuesday said it had happened.
Seems like it would really be good to work some information about criticism of NextGen into the discussion, especially if we have a continuing series of articles about NextGen. (One more and we'd have the usual number to creat a category for NextGen.)
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
