Talk:NTSB says pilot error caused crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407

Are all the sources required? — μ 00:10, February 4 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Per Wikinews:Style guide#Attribution. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

w:2008 Chatsworth train collision

What is the point of the final paragraph about the 2008 Chatsworth train collision? How does that tie in? --SVTCobra 02:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't wait for you response as this article was approaching the dreaded 'stale' condition. --SVTCobra 03:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 951963 [Passed]

Revision 951963 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I added Colgan Air's statement so it wasn't all NTSB. I dropped the train paragraph as I saw no connection and this needed to get reviewed ASAP or be stale. I dropped the sleep allegation, which was not in the sources or the WP page for the incident, which btw was not this incident which the article is about. 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.

Revision 951963 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I added Colgan Air's statement so it wasn't all NTSB. I dropped the train paragraph as I saw no connection and this needed to get reviewed ASAP or be stale. I dropped the sleep allegation, which was not in the sources or the WP page for the incident, which btw was not this incident which the article is about. 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.

What was retracted?

"The NTSB noted that one of the air traffic controllers was making a phone call and failed to warn the aircraft of the conflict that existed between each other in their airspace. However, this was disputed by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association which represents air traffic controllers nationwide. The NTSB later retracted some of its statements." So was it that statement that was retracted, or something else? LeadSongDog (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Category

Please add Category:Bombardier DeHavilland Canada Dash 8 64.229.100.45 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Declined ... encyclopedic. --SVTCobra 00:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

typo

"played apart ", i think was meant "played a part " ... --Itu (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

And that's the reason why i personally fight for even full-open wikinewsarticles. --Itu (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You fight for unprotected articles because your request was honored in only twelve minutes? (Just kidding).

Whereas to me it seems obvious that would serve nothing but revisionism, and I consider revisionism a crime against civilization at least as vile as book burning. --Pi zero (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Raising an issue 'revisionism' with that and drawing a line to book burning - thats what one would consider 'kidding'.

You even have Flagged_revisions/Sighted_versions in en-WN, not even an accident may happen, vandalism should be impossible.

If there is a reader with his eyes at this article, he may be aware that a page is 'wiki', realizing there is an 'edit'-tab. So some people you will luckily get to correct a typo(seeing their success immediately, even with Sighted_versions). Fewer people will even be aware of what a talk page means, moving over there, describing what and where and than wait...and wait if there is an effect. It's a mistake thinking the whole world knows about immediate reaction in en-wikinews.

I sometimes tried to e-mail typos at static websites, thats about the same 'little effort' as the talk-page procedure. With less than 50% success i will not continue making a fool of me.

Now i see(normally my eyes do not wander further down than the end of a news-text....): there is a 'page archived' template at the bottom of the article suggesting a even more complicated procedure what may be very difficult to a random, not really wiki-familiar, reader.

We may now debate that only changes that does not touch the 'subject matter' are accepted - while no one questioned this. The perfect way to handle this would be a (strong) notice, technically at edit-time, much better than that ugly template we have at german wikinews crowning every article... So far. --Itu (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)