# Talk:American Airlines Flight 587

@Spintendo: Hello, I was wondering if I can have permission to nominate this for FA in the future. With more improvement, I believe we can turn this article into a featured one. We conquered GA, lets aim big. AmericanAir88(talk)  23:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course I would support going in that direction — but before that step, I think it would be helpful to get feedback from a really top-drawer editor, say Cassianto for example, to see what the article's chances are. I know you've worked with them before, and I definately think that getting either their input or someone they recommend would be extremely valuable to gauge where the article is and what's needed. Cassianto's profile says "semi-retired" so I'm not so sure if they would be able to offer any spare time. It's a short article really, and what we need is only like 5 minutes of feedback — any input, criticism, suggestions — however generous they're able to be with their time. We need to soak up whatever tidbits we can get, because its that information that will help the article get into a place where it has a fighting chance to succeed at FA. All of this info gathering should be done before the FA process begins.
All of that being said, I think that there is one other issue which may be important here. Articles stand a better chance of getting FA status when there is a rich selection of academic materials written about their subjects. While this crash does have a unique technical aspect of it which has been written by experts in human factors and material sciences, there is still a lack of really good academic material written about it. The material we have is primarily the NTSB report and related news aspects of the crash. FA articles have a wide variety of published materials available to be used, and I think that this may be lacking in the case of this American Airlines flight. The feedback we get from editors like Cassianto would likely bring up this lack of sourcing, and if they feel the article is not ready, then the article might just have to wait until better sources are found (which means a trip to the library, which I'm willing to make). Regards,  Spintendo  16:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping and for the kind comments, although there are far better than me out there, I'm sure. My advice would be to go through this article and compare it in context and structure to a similar article already at FA, like American Airlines Flight 11, for instance. As Spintendo correctly points out, you have found me at a particularly busy time in real life, so I may not be very quick in getting to you. I'm struggling to do anything around here at the moment, including reviews for long standing friends, but if I do find the time then I will give it a copy edit, but I can't make any promises. CassiantoTalk 17:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cassianto: and @Spintendo: Thank you for the imput. AA11 definitely received a ton of more coverage, so I will make sure to find other references. This crash however marks a significant point in aviation as it proves that reactionary thoughts can be wrong (Cause was not terrorism) and this was the last major AA crash. I'd give my full momentum to improve and eventually nominate the article. The only other article of mine that I am trying to get to FA is Deep Space Homer (Currently in peer review and I am prepping for a 4th run after). I definitely can see this article being potential for FA. AmericanAir88(talk)  20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Even though this is a good article, I am concerned about the relevance and importance of these sections, as they both seem to stray away from the article. Are there parts of these sections that can be kept? Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I would politely disagree; they aren't longer than a paragraph or two each, and provide important context to the reactions to the incident in New York and the community most affected. Moving forward, this is invaluable for historians and anyone who wants to understand the crash in full. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not see a good reference for the one injury on the ground. Even the NTSB's final report states that 5 people on the ground and everyone on the plane received fatal injuries. However, the report never states that someone on the ground was injured. Should I remove the ground injury? Why can't I edit Userpedia? (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The redirect November 12, 2001 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 27 § November 12, 2001 until a consensus is reached.  C F A 💬 16:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the Tenerife disaster part of U.S. history too? Grassynoel (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

When it says "U.S. history", I think it only means the deadliest aviation disasters taking place in the United States and its territories only, not in Spain. I don't think it really matters if Pan Am was a US airline. Don't really take my word for it, I'm not sure if I'm correct or not. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Inclined to agree with that interpretation, otherwise you have to broaden scope to incidents such as the Lockerbie bombing, but maybe we could rephrase to 'on US soil' to reduce ambiguity? ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Something I note is currently missing from this (good!) article is how Airbus designs were changed to prevent future incidents. There's a running theme of the rudder pedals having small travel and low pressure to actuate, giving the pilot a false impression of rudder deflection at high speeds; how was this addressed in subsequent years?
Grateful for any sources on the topic! ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)