# Talk:Jessica Dubroff

who is jessica dubroff — Preceding unsigned comment added by  207.69.136.198 (talk)  14:36, September 18, 2004

Maybe you could read the article this is attached to?--211.29.198.148 05:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Book info needs formatting:

Book Title: Will You All Rise ~ 1 of 7 ~ for Jess, Joe & Lloyd
Book Sub-Title: For Seven Year Old Pilots, For Flight Instructors who give
their all, For Father~Daughter Bonds, For the Magnificence of All Children
Everywhere.

Please add it back to the article when it has been formatted. --Viriditas  | Talk 14:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why was the student pilot description removed?  Even if you don't like her (and I didn't), there's no denying she was a student pilot.  She could even log the time as dual.  There aren't any age restrictions on receiving dual training, just on receiving her medical (and therefore soloing). —Cleared as filed. 12:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm so glad you asked, I was just on my way back here to address this. I changed it to "girl" until I could do some research on the technically accurate term for her. Here is my reasoning:
Pilot: The dictionary term for Pilot is "One who operates or is licensed to operate an aircraft in flight." She was a pilot, but we probably wouldn't call her that since "pilot" is a specific FAA certification for which she didn't qualify.
Student Pilot: Sure, anyone can take one lesson and fit the common-sense definition of a student pilot. However, "student pilot" is also a specific FAA certification that she didn't qualify for. Even though she was a student of piloting, this term can lead to confusion with the student pilot certificate.
After digging around a bit, I think "pilot trainee" would be the best term to use. It satisfies both the common-sense and FAA definition, and is consistent with her linked NTSB report which is careful to avoid calling her a "student pilot" and even has a footnote to that effect. Mexcellent 14:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.  I think "pilot trainee" is the least confusing for this situation. —Cleared as filed. 14:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
"Aviatrix" is the word you're looking for to substitute "girl," but FAA certification or not, it's pretty clear that she was a pilot. I mean, that's all she did for her whole life right up to the end all of her media coverage is all directly related to the fact that she was flying aircraft. Revert it, if you like, I don't waste my time on edit wars, but I think this makes for more positive language. -- Randall00 Talk 19:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Or you could just remove it without even saying anything, I guess. -- Randall00 Talk 23:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WHOEVER keeps messing this page up with uncalled for comments will be BANNED. Have some respect for this little girl! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.136.81 (talk) 23:02, March 5, 2006

Jessica was a passenger, not a pilot, as she was uncertified and under age to be pilot in command, and the legal pilot in command for the flight was the instructor. Also she was not manipulating the controls during the accident flight, according to the NTSB report. So had the flight been successfully completed, she would not have broken any piloting record, and we have no reliable source telling us otherwise. Crum375 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If anyone wants to post into this (or any) page, please observe civility rules and assume good faith. Posting personal attacks will not be tolerated and will be reverted on sight, per WP policy. Thanks, Crum375 12:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no known source that disputes the fact that her death was 'tragic'. In many ways, this tragedy is a classic case of the dictionary definition of the word. The AOPA reference cited in the article is using it. When there is a clear and undisputed support for an adjective, I believe WP can use it. Once there is any dispute, then I agree WP cannot take sides, although the majority view should be given proper weight etc. In this case I see it as totally uncontroversial and well sourced that it was 'tragic' and hence WP can clearly state so. Crum375 13:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be uncontroversial that some individuals are beautiful, but beauty, like tragedy, is still a subjective judgement.  We can say that such and such a source has passed such a judgment, but it's not our place to endorse it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I would agree in the case of the adjective 'beautiful' that it is in the eye of the beholder, hence the beholder should be specifically attributed. I think 'tragic' is generally less controversial, and is certainly not controversial in this particular case. WP is all about stating 'facts', per reliable sources. WP facts are not necessarily truths - only views held by their sources, and when they are uncontroversial (i.e. in total agreement), WP generally calls a spade a spade, without the direct and immediate attribution. In this case, of an uncontroversial view held by multiple reliable sources, I think the narrative is improved by using the adjective and supplying a subsequent source as a reference. It boils down to ease of reading and style: when a fact (as defined by WP) is uncontroversial, it is not necessary to attribute it directly; supplying a reliable source for it will do, and the narrative will be easier to follow. Crum375 16:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
We attribute views to sources, we don't make them our own.  Our facts are supposed to be not only true, but also verifiable.  You can't source the tragic nature of an event, because what happens when someone disagrees?  If I say it wasn't a tragedy, am I wrong?  No, because tragedy is subjective.  The objective nature of wikipedia means that all its facts ought to be truths, not mere views.  That a view exists is a verifiable fact, but the truth of a subjective view is not.  If an alternate judgement can be made from the same facts, wikipedia shouldn't be taking a stance.  We don't say Stalin or Hitler or Ghengis Khan or even Lucifer was evil, regardless of how uncontroversial that may be, only that they are seen as such, because one can disagree with an event being good, evil, beautiful, or tragic, and still be perfectly correct, while the fact that a source holds a view is objectively verifiable and only has one truth state.
Saying that wikipedia's content isn't supposed to be necessarily true is completely and totally wrong.  The standard is verifiability, not truth, to set a higher bar, not a lower one.  Subjective things are inherently violations of WP:NPOV, so we just let the facts speak for themselves.  Don't tell people it was a tragedy, or that the Mona Lisa was the greatest painting of all time.  Cite a source that does, and say the source judged it so, or let them make that judgment for themselves. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you are missing my point. I am not saying we can willy-nilly spew unsupported 'facts'. I think anything and everything we say must be well supported by reliable sources, so that is not an issue. The only issue is that of style, of whether we need to say:
"...CNN, ABC, FOX and others who monitored her flight every day for the duration of her trip, reporting each time she landed or took off, until the tragic ending of her 'Sea to Shining Sea Flight.'", with the appropriate sources listed below, vs.:
"...CNN, ABC, FOX and others who monitored her flight every day for the duration of her trip, reporting each time she landed or took off, until the tragic[1] ending of her 'Sea to Shining Sea Flight.'"; or even:
"...CNN, ABC, FOX and others who monitored her flight every day for the duration of her trip, reporting each time she landed or took off, until what some sources called "the tragic ending" of her 'Sea to Shining Sea Flight.'[2]"
IMO, for something so uncontroversial the sourcing of the adjective 'tragic' is cumbersome and detracts from the narrative flow. There is a WP rule not to overburden a paragraph with sources and footnotes, especially for non-controversies. The bottom line though is style, not basic policy as you make it sound. We all agree that we can't invent our own WP views on things and we need reliable sources - the question is only how to present the sources while making the article easy to read. Crum375 17:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The first two are subjective, the third is a bit weasely but acceptable.  What's wrong with the way I phrased it, that simply excised the subjective term altogether? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
When a little girl who tries to be a pilot, sets lofy goals, becomes a media darling, is under intense media scrutiny, suddenly crashes and dies, her demise is tragic almost by the definition of the word. In this case we have it as 'tragic' on the record, from multiple sources and undisputed. By omitting the word, we make the article colder, less interesting. Part of our mission at WP is to produce interesting and readable articles, not only minimal facts. I see no reason to excise the word as it is well sourced and it adds value to the article, and hence to WP as a whole. Crum375 17:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
When a man malevolently murders a dozen people in cold blood it's almost by definition evil, but we don't call anyone evil in wikipedia, nor do we call charity good.  I don't think there is any removal of facts attached to omitting a single, subjective adjective, nor does it harm the readability of the article in any way.  If anything, including subjective description undermines Wikipedia for me by turning a quality documentation of facts into a piece of sentimental pap. If the facts are tragic, or amazing, they should speak for themselves.  We don't need to tell the readers that.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I still think 'tragic', well sourced and uncontrovesial, is much less faceted than 'good', 'bad', 'evil', etc. I can see how a bad event can lead to good, and vice versa, and how different colored glasses can see things in a different light. In this case I think 'tragedy', regardless of your interpretation of the event, is fairly innocuous and unambiguous. But I have changed it to 'abrupt' for now, as I do agree in principle that we should strive to be as unemotional as possible and 'tragic' does connote an emotion. Crum375 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, you've gone on for almost 8 paragraphs about it arguing with people. Clearly it's controversial or no one would have had an issue with it. As Night Gyr said, facts should speak for themselves, and they do. 75.157.55.2 (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I added the fact tag to this line: "The accident, and its associated publicity, led to Federal legislation that prohibits anyone who does not hold at least a private pilot certificate and a current medical certificate from being allowed to manipulate the controls of an aircraft during any record attempt, aeronautical competition, or aeronautical feat." I have heard this too, but have been unable to verify this, and unless someone else can, it should be removed. Dhaluza 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it up a little by moving the refs from the EL section to inline. Crum375 11:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, missed that. The other inline refs should be moved around a bit, though. Dhaluza 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to move the refs. We also need to find the 'rain' quote ref - the news archives all require payment unfortunately. Crum375 11:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Dubroff, the precocious 7-year-old who died Thursday while trying to set a new cross-country flying record, was growing up in a family that only recently emerged from serious financial hardship.
[removed copy-vio]
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/examiner/article.cgi?year=1996&month=04&day=14&article=NEWS15677.dtl#ixzz0jzJ3JSyg--99.177.250.140 (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course I will re-write it so it is not plagiarized.--99.177.250.140 (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful about copyright violation. Crum375 (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Crum375. I haven't gotten around to doing this yet but when I do have time I will read the SFGate article and put it in my own words so I do not plagiarize it or mess up copyright.--99.177.250.140 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jessica Dubroff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


### Overall article comments
Crum375, you have certainly put a lot of time into this article and it shows. Thank you for putting so much effort into making Wikipedia better.
The article reads very well and I actually enjoyed reading about Jessica and her story. I have listed changes that I recommend you make to further enhance this very good article and I hope you take it to FA review after this.
Great use of sources and inline notations.


### Introduction
The use of NTSB should initially be spelled out as "National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)" [without the quotes] and then spelled as the initials NTSB.
 Done - Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The same needs to be done for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
 Done - Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The sentence The U.S. NTSB investigated the crash and concluded it was caused by the flight instructor's improper decision to take off in poor weather conditions, his overloading the aircraft, and his failure to maintain airspeed, which resulted in a stall. is pretty long and lacks some amount of clarity if only the failure to maintain airspeed caused the stall or all three things. One solution is The U.S. NTSB investigated the crash and concluded it was caused by the flight instructor's (1) improper decision to take off in poor weather conditions, (2) overloading the aircraft, and (3) failure to maintain airspeed, all of which resulted in a stall.
 Not done - I prefer to keep the lead as smooth-flowing as possible, and I feel that adding numbers or bullets would make it too complex. NTSB's conclusions and their rationale are described in some detail in the body; I prefer to have just a top-level summary in the lead. Your point about the uncertainty of how much each individual item contributed to the crash is valid, but I think stating "all of which resulted in a stall" would be putting words in the NTSB's mouth. As I understand it, the most immediate reason for the crash was the loss of airspeed which led to a stall followed by loss of control. The loss of airspeed resulted from a combination of poor decisions made by the pilot in command, including taking off in bad weather and over gross weight, described in detail in the article. In my opinion it's better to leave the relative contribution of each item a bit vague (although they are listed in the order of least to most direct causal factors) and let those readers who are very interested find more detailed explanations in the body. As I see it, a good lead is a balance between too much information (making it hard to read), and too little (making it hard to understand), and I think this paragraph is a reasonable compromise. Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
With your description of what the NTSB wrote I agree with you that unless it was clear they meant all three caused the crash then my change would not be appropriate. If they were not clear in their wording then you are better off not forcing a direction.§ Music Sorter § (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


### "Sea to Shining Sea" flight
"City State" usage requires "cityname, statename," with commas after each name.
I tried it both ways, and I think it flows smoother without the second comma.
Actually that is an English grammar rule covered in the Chicago Manual of Style and numerous other sources. The FA article on Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. uses the comma after the state. It is also in the book by Robert Brittain called "A Pocket Guide to Correct Punctuation", page 32, ISBN 0-8120-2599-7.
Here are a few online sources as well if you are interested.
http://terriblywrite.wordpress.com/terribly-right-writing-for-the-web/top-5-comma-errors/
http://www.esc.edu/esconline/across_esc/writerscomplex.nsf/0/e979df0f2449d835852569c30072177b?OpenDocument
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp
§ Music Sorter § (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
In most of your examples (with one exception), the remaining phrase after the state comma is longer and/or more complex, which makes the comma more reasonable. In this example there are only two words: "Dubroff...arrived in Cheyenne...after a long day of flying from their Half Moon Bay, California departure point." I think putting the comma after the state here makes the final part of the sentence appear odd and disjointed. Crum375 (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: the above refers to the second case of "city, state". In the first one, describing where Dubroff was born, there are more words after the comma, so I am still thinking about it. In any case, it's a matter of style, and the MOS is just a suggestion, not a hard rule. I personally like to have the minimal amount of punctuation, unless the sentence reads very oddly, or is unclear. Crum375 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we are looking at two different things. I see what you might be thinking. I believe I failed to explain the "City, State," rule to which I have been referencing. The situation is only when you have the city name followed by the state name and there is more text after the state name. Let me quote from my Robert Brittain "..Correct Punctuation" guide to clarify my comment:
"Another situation involving grammatically nonessential elements which interrupt or change the normal word order is illustrated in such sentences as these:
He lived in Boston, Massachusetts, for three years.
Her youngest daughter was born on January 27, 1938, at four o'clock in the morning.
The offices of the company are located at 448 Barrow Street, New York, N.Y. 10014.
The elements enclosed within pairs of commas are all conventionally regarded as parenthetical. Notice that in the first sentence the word Massachusetts stands between two essential modifiers of the verb, which should normally be together. One might consider that this word is essential to your meaning, since it is important to know which of several Bostons you are talking about. But you should notice carefully that it is not grammatically essential to the construction of the sentence..."
What they mean is that you can technically remove the name of the state and the grammar is fine, but when you add the state name to the city name then you need the two commas to parenthetically set off the state name. If you only list the city or only list the state that would be completely different and this rule does not apply. I am only talking about cases where both the city and state are listed you need the comma after the state if there is more text after that:
"Dubroff was born in Falmouth, Massachusetts, to Lloyd..."
"...flying from their Half Moon Bay, California, departure point."
If you absolutely disagree I will not hold you up for that, but I disagree this particular point is only a matter of style; it is English grammar that is often missed. § Music Sorter § (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a style issue, but I am willing to be overruled if I see I am in a tiny minority. If it's OK with you, I'll leave this for the FA reviewers, and let them decide. Crum375 (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem leaving it for the FA review since it is not required in my mind for GA anyway. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
If you have the date of birth from a source it should be added to the initial sentence which lists the location of birth.
Her birth and death dates are listed in the main source, the NTSB report. This source is cited at the end of the first paragraph in the lead, where those dates are mentioned. Not sure what else is needed, since this is not controversial. Crum375 (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I may have confused you. Your source is perfectly acceptable. My proposal was to enhance the first sentence to something like "Dubroff was born on May 5, 1988, in Flamouth, Massachusetts, to Lloyd Dubroff...", however since the current article shows the birthdate so near that sentence already in the into and Aviator template it might be too redundant. I now retract my birthdate request. § Music Sorter § (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


### Final flight segment
"City State" usage requires "cityname, statename," with commas after each name.
See above. Crum375 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

See above.
One of the paragraphs is not referenced, but it is presumed that citation 1 is the source. Making it specifically reference number 1 removes all doubt.
 Done - Crum375 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


### Further reading
These two links are articles that would be better added as citations for appropriate spots in the article. It is fine to have multiple sources providing citations on the same point which you do have in a few spots already.
I included these as FR intentionally. The first is a bit touchy BLP-wise (the mother and the siblings are alive), which would require more reliable sources to justify inclusion in the main article. I felt ignoring it altogether would be wrong, and that leaving it as an FR item is a reasonable compromise. The second item is an overall review page, including many different takes on the accident. I did include some of the individual articles as references elsewhere, but felt that having the overall coverage in one place would be useful to some readers, and that FR would be a good place to include that link. Crum375 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation makes sense for the article and I accept your current use as is. § Music Sorter § (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


### References
The NTSB report cited numerous times is very large (69 pages) and therefore the citations need page number(s) in the citation entries. See the article USAir_Flight_405 with a similar NTSB reference situation, or in the article Micro_Instrumentation_and_Telemetry_Systems.
I think adding dozens of page numbers to an investigative report makes the reference section very messy. Also, quite often items are not directly covered in a single page, and require a careful reading of the entire report. In my own reference article of Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907, I don't include page numbers in the final report, and it was accepted by the FA reviewers that way. Crum375 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I disagree with not using page numbers in a reference citation that is larger than a few pages, this point is not a criteria for GA status. Clearly it is most important to ensure there is a citation, which you have, and citing a specific page number is the icing on the cake. I accept your entry as is. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I see the article uses the web citation template in just about every instance except for the first one. That would explain why the formatting of the first reference is different from the others. Changing it to a web citation template would solve that. Note that their use is not required for any article, but they certainly help with consistency within articles.
 Done- Good point. This was caused by some leftovers from the historical stub, which I have now (hopefully) fixed. Crum375 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
One web citation template uses the accessdate= variable, but I don't think any of the others do. I recommend you use it on all web citations to improve consistency in the references and improve maintence on the article for the years to come.
I agree in principle, but I hate seeing more than one date in the refs section unless absolutely needed, since I consider the refs section a readable part of the article and think it should be reasonably reader-friendly too. My own rule is that if the source is a reliable online news magazine of some kind, or a government site with a clear publication date (e.g. NTSB accident report), I tend to leave the access date out. I will add at least one date to any remaining undated source. Crum375 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. As long as the references are consistent I have no concern with your method as is.§ Music Sorter § (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The external link to amazon.com for the book Will You All Rise... appears inappropriate and violates the External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided item number 5 "links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services..." If you cite the book in the article you can put it in as a source. In general Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum.
 Done - I agree, so I took it out for now. Crum375 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Again in the external links (which should be kept to a minimum consider adding a subsection on the songs written about Jessica and then you can list the cite as a source and not just an external link. This will make the number of links much shorter and more acceptable for the other entries.
I don't think there are enough there to justify a separate section for songs. I think the remaining ELs are reasonable, and I do agree with you on keeping the overall number as low as possible. Crum375 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I accept your current external links. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Reference numbers 6, 8 & 9 are notes and are fine to include here. My concern for them is that they are very technical and introduce descriptions, meanings, and definitions without a source. If they are actually noted within the references which are cited for the paragraphs or sentences in which they are used, you may need to consider including a comment in the noted text something like "The NTSB report cited that when an airport is officially IFR (normally because of reduced visibility..." so it is clear these comments are not primary research.
Here again I rely on my reference FA article, which was the first commercial aviation accident article to get promoted (to my knowledge). One of the experienced reviewers asked me to add clarification footnotes for technical lingo, saying that the wiki-links alone are not friendly enough, and that such "translation" notes help non-technical readers follow the text. This relates only to generic terminology issues, not anything specific to the article, and is equivalent to foreign language quotes which we allow Wikipedians to translate, as long as the original is included and there is nothing controversial. In this case, I have added one link to the generic U.S. FARs, and left the others as they are, with wiki-links. If anyone challenges the explanations, they can either be improved, or removed. I tend to agree with the FA reviewer who suggested them, and think they help the reader, and like a foreign language quote are verifiable by including the "translation" along with the original, so any knowledgeable reader can verify their accuracy for himself. Crum375 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As I originally mentioned I had no problem with them, but was only considering the concern over verifiability. If we have precedence for the same layout and style then I don't see a problem. I accept how you have them now. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Reference 10 appears to be almost a transcription of the NTSB report and does not appear to provide anything not already in the actual NTSB report. Since you already have the actual NTSB report I don't see where this source helps the article. Additionally you have it supporting the section on Child Pilot Safety Act. I did not see anything in that source which related to this section.
 Done - I agree. I do want that source, since although it's very close to the primary one, it is secondary, which is always good to have. So I have moved it to the previous section in support of the primary NTSB reference there. Crum375 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Your solution is fine. I did want to comment on one thing you mentioned. If you have a primary source and then you cite a secondary source which restates the primary source (as far as I could tell), the only thing I see you achieve is confirmation that one other writer or editor feels the primary source is good enough to cite. With an NTSB report I would not see the need to get confirmation. If the secondary source drew separate conclusions or made confirming statements separate of simply restating the primary source, then I do see additional value. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


### GA checklist
I will reserve final notation of the GA Checklist until after the author has a chance to address the concerns.

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Crum375, please note on my talk page when you believe you have addressed each of my comments one way or another and I will be happy to close this out for you. Congratulations on a great job here. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Crum375, it has been a pleasure reviewing this article with you. I appreciate your comments and willingness to work through any concerns. I look forward to this article making it to FA status. Great work. I will update the related GA pages for this article shortly. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the Infobox/aviator is used in this article, it might be good to include the entry for f-flights= and reference "Sea to Shining Sea" flight. § Music Sorter § (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(Crum375, you made me think about a number of situations that I had previously not considered an alternate position. For that I thank you. I bring this up here simply to help me understand if I should stop making this edit to articles in which I find this situation. If it is a matter of style and not grammar, I do not want to force my will on other editors. I sincerely hope this does not come across as offensive or combative. Please let me know if that is the case. Also if I have misrepresented your position below feel free to make any necessary additions or changes.)
As Crum375 and I went through the GAR process, we agreed to disagree on one particular point: whether to make a change on comma usage when a city and state name are used in sequence. We agreed that it was not critical for the GAR and we decided to leave it for the FAR. The question was whether you need to surround the state name with a comma on either side when it follows a city name and additional text follows the state name as in "We went to San Francisco, California, this summer." Note that if the state name ends the sentence or there is no city name immediately before the state name, this rule does not apply.
Crum375 believed it was a question of style that was up to the author and I believed it was an English grammar rule. We both agreed that if either of us was in the minority of a consensus we would heed to the other side. Crum375 believed that the short nature of the text following the state name in the above example did not require the second comma after the state. It was only a question of style. He did acknowledge that if the text following the state name was longer and possibly more complex, then a comma after the state name would be warranted to help clarify the meaning, but it was still not required as a rule.
Crum375 and I covered a number of points in the GAR which can be seen above on this talk page. Something I did not bring up with Crum375 in our conversation was the sources referenced in the article seem to always follow the inclusion of the second comma (when the state name immediately follows the city name), but that could still be a question of style from all these authors I suppose.

Ref #1 At 0801:21, the pilot in command contacted the Casper AFSS6 via telephone and requested a weather briefing for a VFR flight from Cheyenne to Lincoln, Nebraska, the first scheduled fuel stop of the day’s intended flights.
Ref #1 She said he had flown twice to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and once to Sedona, Arizona.
Ref #1 In addition, his flight log showed that on April 8, he piloted a 4-hour flight conducted from Half Moon Bay to San Carlos, California, and return.
Ref #1 On Wednesday April 10, the airplane departed Half Moon Bay at 0700 PDT, and landed at Elko, Nevada, approximately 1020 PDT and was refueled. At Elko, the pilot in command closed the flight plan from Half Moon Bay, filed a new one to Rock Springs, Wyoming, and received a weather briefing for the Rock Springs flight.
Ref #1 This example shows that with a state name only, no comma is used, unless required for some other grammatical reason. The NWS26 0900 surface analysis chart showed a weak, quasistationary front extending from western Montana southeastward through southeastern Wyoming becoming a moderate cold front over extreme northeastern Colorado.
Ref #2 She was to fly east in three legs, laying over in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Fort Wayne, Indiana, before finally reaching Falmouth, Massachusetts, the town where she was born.
Ref #4 Jessica, her entrepreneur father, Lloyd, and instructor Joe Reid were killed instantly when their single-engine Cessna Cardinal 177B plummeted into a residential neighborhood in Cheyenne, Wyo., shortly after takeoff."
Further Reading #1 Three years ago, Jessica, then 4, was a squatter with her mother, Lisa Blair Hathaway, in an abandoned house in Falmouth, Mass., according to police there, and the family was getting handouts from a local health food store.
Further Reading #1 While Jessica was mostly raised in Massachusetts, she lived in Pescadero, California, a tiny onetime fishing village where old dogs lazily patrol the streets because there is no traffic.
§ Music Sorter § (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, I noted that recently you reverted some edits by an unidentified editor as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:SOURCES. When I reviewed those sections I noticed something on which I wanted to understand your perspective. Take a look at WP:BURDEN. I found the following quote related to what was happening here in the revert of changes to the Infobox.

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.[2]"
I assume you would not revert the changes if the editor included citations. Although I am not sure why the parents names was reverted. I doubt anyone would dispute the names of the parents since you listed them in the article and showed citations already. The infobox is listing many items that are in the article, but there are no source citations. I see this SF, CA newspaper covers the facts on the burial. http://articles.sfgate.com/keyword/jessica-dubroff Now the occupation and ethnicity may be more difficult to find sources specifically stating those facts, so maybe those should stay out unless sourced. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not personally keen on most of these additional parameters, but would not object if someone added them with an appropriate inline reliable source. I think the ethnicity should not be included even if there is a source for it, unless it explains why it is relevant to her notability (e.g. discrimination issue). And "occupation=adventurer" for a seven-year-old child would require an exceptional source in my view, per WP:REDFLAG, since there are millions of kids flying around the world every year without being called "adventurers", nor having an "occupation" of any kind. Being in an accident doesn't change that. Crum375 (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Crum375, I agree with all your comments. I noticed your friend added the items back in without adding any citations even after I listed them here. The IP address has only existed for 5 days. Since they have not signed in maybe they do not understand some of the deeper philosophies of Wikipedia. I hesitate to edit this article directly since I worked with you on the GA status and do not want to be called on a possible conflict of interest in retrospect. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your position and agree that, except for possible clear vandalism reversion, your direct editing could be perceived as problematic. I have reverted the unsourced additions, and hope that the IP will get the message. Crum375 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Could the person that removed the image bring their concern here please? Please state which specific fair use criteria the image doesn't match. Thanks. Dawnseeker2000  03:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I know the intent of the picture is for showing the dual flight controls present in most airplanes, but it this picture also shows two Garmin 1000 primary fight displays which didn't exist at the time of the accident and the airplane itself is of a Cessna T182T which wasn't available until 2001. Driftwood87 (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This biographical article of an unnotable individual seems to digress to be about a notable event. Perhaps it should be moved. Any suggestions as to whet we could rename it? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)