Talk:Learjet 35/36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Aviation
 Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments

merge with 26

Contents

[edit] Advertising

Please read the tag, it does not say the article appears to be an advertisement it says it reads like one and it does. It needs to be written as an article, not a brochure listing the attributes for propsetive buyers. KP Botany 03:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but almost all aircraft stubs are simply a listing of the characteristics and attributes of the aircraft, not for prospective buyers, but for those researching the aircraft in an encyclopedia and wanting the basic technical information about the plane. An ad uses (and that tag is meant for) glowing language which puffs up and tries to "sell" the aircraft. This article simply doesn't do that. Akradecki 15:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but no, there is no requirement than an ad use "glowing language which puffs up and tries to 'sell' the aircraft." This article reads simply like a brochure or the details in an advertisement for the jet for buyers considering purchasing the airplane, not like an article for the layman reading an encyclopedia.

The Learjet Model 35 is a multi-role business jet and military transport (designated by the U.S. Air Force as C-21). It is powered by two Garrett TFE731-2 fanjet engines,requires a crew of two and can carry from six to eight passengers. Its speed of 440 knots makes it one of the fastest business jets. It can seat 7 passengers, with an eighth passenger on the jumpseat immediately behind the copilot.

The Learjet Model 35 is a small jet aircraft manufactured by Learjet of Wichita, Kansas in the 1980s. It's production ceased in ____, when it was updated by the Learjet __. It is used primarily for business travel and as a military transport by the United States Airforce (designated C-21). At 440 knots it is one of the fastest business jets. The jet requires a crew of two (pilot and copilot) and can carry from six to eight passengers. It is powered by two Garrett TFE731-2 fanjet engines, some comment about how common these engines are or their size.

And, in fact, it is so like an advertisement that you didn't even read it, as most readers won't. It says the Learjet 35 "can carry from six to egith passengers," and, in the very next sentence, it "can seat 7 passengers, with an eigth passenger on the jumpseat immediately behind the copilot." People don't read advertising brochures, they simply scan them for information. Wikipedia is not a parking lot for plane specs, it is an encyclopedia.
At this point you have two choice, either read the article and rewrite it so it doesn't read like an advertisement or brochure for buyers of the aircraft, but rather like an article in Wikipedia for the general reader curious about the aircraft, or put the tag back up so that someone else will attend to this article and format it for reading for the general audience. KP Botany 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want different first paragraph text, and you can take the time to write it here, why not just rewrite the text? And yes, I did read it. The cabin layout configs range from 6 to 8 pax, and when full, the seat for the 8th pax is a small jumpseat, and that there are seven normal seats. What's wrong with that? Akradecki 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
KP, thanks for pointing out where the article falls short. I do so look foward to your extensive contributions toward improving the article, since you are apparrently such an expert on advertising, you should be able to write suitable text. Again, thanks! - BillCJ 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I offered suggestions on the talk page already. It does read like an advertisement, because, instead of discussing the jet in the article in a way that is usable for a reader unfamiliar with the jet, it gives specs. A list of spess is appropriate if someone is considering buying the plane, but that is not an appropriate thing to put on Wikipedia. If it's simply a list of specs, make the article a list of facts about the plane, lists are part of Wikipedia. But, please, don't call what you yourself admit is simply a listing of facts an article--it's not. If I wrote a botany article simply by listing facts about a plant, my text would be slapped with a need for clean-up tag and all sorts of tags, or other editors with expertise in the area would appropriately edit the article to make it readable. I can't write the article, although I did give suggestions, as I have no familiarity or expertise with the plane outside of flying in them as a passenger. Since I'm saying it reads like an advertising brochure thats a lists the specs, and you admit it IS a "straight-forward listing of facts" we're not actually disagreeing about that. However, you are saying that this is appropriate for an article. I am saying it is not.
Here are some general guidelines that apply:
  • Wikipedia:Explain jargon:
  • Explain jargon when you use it (see jargon). Remember that the person reading your article might not be someone educated or versed in your field, and so might not understand the subject-specific terms from that field. Terms which may go without a definition in an academic paper or a textbook may require one in Wikipedia.
  • The first time an article uses a term that may not be clearly understood by a reader not familiar with the subject area, such as the terminology of a science, art, philosophy, etc. or the jargon of a particular trade or profession, introduce it with a short, clear explanation that is accessible to the normal English reader or based on terms previously defined in the article. Beware inaccuracies accompanying short explanations of technical terms with precise meanings.
  • "Powered by two Garrett TFE731-2 turbofan engines," "The turbofans are pod-mounted on the sides of the rear fuselage." "The aircraft has a retractable tricycle landing gear, single steerable nose gear and multiple-disc hydraulic brakes." Jargon, jargon, jargon, jargon, jargon.
  • Wikipedia:Article development:
  • Writing
  • Start your article with a concise lead section or introduction defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points. The reader should be able to get a good overview by only reading the lead, which should be between one and four paragraphs long, depending on the length of the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section.
  • Remember that, although you will be familiar with the subject you are writing about, readers of Wikipedia may not be, so it is important to establish the context of your article's subject early on. For instance, if you are writing an article about a sports event you should mention the sport and, if relevant, any national details: rather than
  • The Red Cup was a domestic league competition that ran between 1994 and 1996
  • it would be more helpful to write
  • The Red Cup was a domestic rugby league competition in New Caledonia that ran between 1994 and 1996
  • "The Learjet Model 35 and Model 36 are a series of multi-role business jets and military transport (designated by the U.S. Air Force as C-21)."
  • This opening sentence is contextually an example of what not to write, it assumes that only readers familiar with Learjets, commuter aircraft, military aircraft and jets will be reading the article. That's not true, this is a general encyclopedia.
  • Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles:
  • Think of the reader
  • Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. The people who read it have different backgrounds, education and worldview from you. Try to make your article accessible to as many of them as possible. The reader is probably reading the article to learn. It's quite possible the reader knows nothing at all about the subject: the article needs to explain it to them.
  • Again, lead paragraph sentences like this "Powered by two Garrett TFE731-2 turbofan engines, ..." don't consider the reader at all, at least not the Wikipedia reader, a person using a general encyclopedia.
  • State the obvious
  • State facts which may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article. For example, consider this sentence:
  • The Ford Thunderbird was conceived as a response to the Chevrolet Corvette and entered production for the 1955 model year.
  • Here no mention is made of the Ford Thunderbird's fundamental nature: it is an automobile. It assumes that the reader already knows this—an assumption that may not be correct, especially if the reader is not familiar with Ford or Chevrolet. Perhaps instead:
  • The Ford Thunderbird is a car manufactured in the USA by the Ford Motor Company.
  • As I suggested, "The Learjet Model 35 and Model 36 are small jet aircrafts manufactured by Learjet of Wichita, Kansas in the 1980s."
  • If other aircraft articles read like this, they should also be changed to conform to being usable by Wikipedia's general audience.
  • Comments also posted on Learjet35/36 talk page.
  • As to Bill's comment, "since you are apparrently such an expert on advertising, you should be able to write suitable text." This is incorrect, we don't want someone to be writing the text because of their expertise in advertising. If someone is an expert in advertising AND can write suitable text that isn't advertising, this could be useful. But it seems more likely that someone who is an expert in advertising would be called to write an advertisement. This article is already written like an advertisement. What it needs is to be written like an article in a general purpose encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is striving to be. My writing is turgid and needs copyediting by other Wikipedia editors, and I have a string of them who follow me around and do this, specifically because I write too much ad copy.
I said an expert ON advertising, not IN; it wasn't a typo. To clarify, I should have said "such an expert on what is and what isn't advertising". Sorry. - BillCJ 03:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Brochure:
  • "They are usually succinct in language and eye-catching in design." Yeah, they are often written like lists of specs, as this article is written.
  • Please either rewrite the ad or replace the tag so that someone who cares and is knowledgable in this area can attend to it.

KP Botany 21:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible solution to lack of content

I just noticed that the Learjet C-21 article is also basically a stub. The C-21 is used in the executive transport role anyway, so there's not htat many differences between the civilian and military types. Maybe we should combine the two article here for the time being, with Learjet C-21 becoming a redirect here. - BillCJ 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Think we should go ahead and add the info from the prison plane article that's AfD'd? Akradecki 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, NO, as it's still mostly unverifiable opinon. - BillCJ 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine by me...actually, fine if it never shows up. My only motivation was to keep it from being its own article, which I think is a worse option! (BTW...I wonder if we could all be making a lot more money, since we're so good at writing advertising!) Akradecki 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing the Learjet 35/36 article, not how much money you could make with a career move. The prison plane information must be fully source to be included anywhere, though. There's really no basis for posting an unsourced rumor in a Wikipedia article. KP Botany 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
KP Botany, what's your beef? You're about to lose the vote over N221SG anyhow. What makes you think the same questionable material belongs here any more than it does in that article, considering the content itself is the primary reason it's being nixed? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to lose the vote? You mean it's going to be kept unsourced against my wishes?
"Rename Isn't there a learjet article, or is there one on older models, or do older models have their own pages? The information, when attached to a source should go on a page titled something like Learjet 35. This can be a redirect page. KP Botany 15:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"Response If it is about that aircraft, that's where it belongs."
"Yes, it is certainly trivial, and I do understand, or had thought that it was about one particular plane that happens to be a Learjet 35. The rumor is tied directly to Angelina, one single actress, which is why I switched from battleships as analogies, because I couldn't remember the correct title for a particular one, and this rumor is tied directly to a Learjet 35. Yes, a trivia section or specific aircraft or note or some such is appropriate with a redirect--but, in this case, if and only if it is correctly sourced. Without sources, delete.
So, you see me losing this vote, and an unsourced rumor keeping its own article? I don't see this as happening. What I would like to see happening is people who care about Wikipedia and the quality of this article actually making it a usable, well-written article for a general encyclopedia instead of making snide Personal Attacks about me. You don't appear, by your comments on the deletion page and your comment here to have actually read any of my posts, as I am against keeping the article because and the vote is going my way, so should I assume you're actually read this article on the Learjet 35/36 or not? If you have, maybe you and your friends could work on improving it, instead of on continuing to attack me. KP Botany 03:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I thinks there's a slight misunderstanding here. As far as I can tell, both KP and Joseph are for the deletion of the rendition aircraft article. However, both Joseph and I are against any of it's info being placed in the Learjet article, and I think KP agrees with that too. I know Joseph can be a bit pointed at times (I can personally atest to that!), but I don't see any "personal attacks" there. In case you haven't noticed, Joesph and "his friends" have been working to improve the article, and have revised it extensivley already. If you can assist with the editing, please do. Otherwise, come back in a week or two, and see your issues have been addresed to your saticfaction. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why not just say, "we're addressing the issues?" instead of all the spurious comments about me? And, no, I don't really want the rumor information in this article, unless it is a large scale well-documented rumor. In which case, I think it does belong here. Without that, no way. And if it were of a scale that it had that sort of documentation some of it would have been on the Internet already, but it's not. So it can wait for sources. I would like people to use real arguments, though, not just say, "Rumors don't belong on Wikipedia." AfD is a madhouse. KP Botany 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumors are, by definiton, undocumented. They may be reported by notable media, but as long as those reports are based on "unnamed sources", they are not verifiable. Verifiablity is Wikipedia Policy, not merely guidelines, and is the basis for such statements as "Rumors don't belong on Wikipedia." And I apologize for not saying that we were woking on the problem; I assumed you could tell by looking at the article itself and its history page. - BillCJ 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Try looking up books on rumors some time. You're mixing two things up, the content of the rumor, where the lack of verifiability makes it a rumor, and the existence of a rumor. People can gossip about something that doesn't exist and their gossiping can be verifiable, while the content of the gossip is unverifiable. KP Botany 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we agree on that point. The article on rendition is about the existence of the rumor, while the article on aircraft "supposedly" used in such cases are the rumor. The first belongs, while the second does not. Thanks for clearing up the distinction. - BillCJ 15:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the way the article was originally written, it was probably taken from the manufacturer's website verbatim. This is frowned upon by most serious editors on Wiki, as it is often a violation of copyright restrictions. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. In the future, you'll find that aircraft article editors can be a bit touchy at having accusations thrown around. A simple statement to the effect that the text needs some major reworking, as it tends to resemble an advertisement at this point, and then leaving editors to do their work, may go alot further next time. After a period of time, at least a week, if you find that nothing has been done, then you could consider adding tags.

You might also consider trying to clean up such articles yourself, even if you aren't familiar with the content. Good copy is good copy, no matter the topic. In addition, it would show that you aren't just trying to be critical, but are attempting to help address the issues you brought up. - BillCJ 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what tags are in fact designed for, to bring matters that need attention to the attention of editors who are concerned about the articles. If this is against policy and the tags are not for this purpose, then by all means edit the tags or delete them from Wikipedia or make it clear on their pages that tags are NOT for notifying editors and readers about problems with the articles. I suggest people consider they don't WP:OWN the articles, and consider the purpose of the tag. I explained, in detail, here what the issues were with the aritcle. There simply was no copy to clean up, as the article is a contradictory list of specs, which would require either research or knowledge of the plane, preferably the former coupled with the latter in order to create a usable article from scratch, but instead the focus has been taking potshots at me. So, it was copied from the website, contradictory, a list of specs, and you still haven't run out of criticisms for me. Any more criticisms BillCJ? KP Botany 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An article consisting solely of a list of specs is not an advertisement but a stub. All aircraft articles are required to have specs in order to be condidered for GA or FA status. Therefore the correct tag to have used would have been {{aero-stub}}, which I believe was alrady on the page. If the specs were contradictiory, simple {{fact}} tags might also have been used. However, what's done is done. I'm not sure anything else can be accomplished by discussing the matter further. - BillCJ 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Two more points and then I'm going to go work on a UAV article for a while:

  1. In regards to the {{advert}} tag: Tags are designed to notify when an article falls short of WP guidelines, and the tag almost always directs you to the policy or guideline that applies. This is so with {{advert}} as well. If you follow the link in the tag, you'll find the following: "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style." That's it. That's the guideline. What bothers me about this whole thread is that KP Botany has taken a simple guideline and has added his own interpretation of the policy taking it way beyond the original intent. This article, when he tagged it, was indeed written in an objective, unbiased style which cited its sources. Bill is right completely in his point about the way to address this is through the stub tag, which the article already had. I'd add that another, better template would have been {{expand}}.
  2. The article now exceeds the amount of information called out in WP:STUB, so is there any objection to me pulling the stub tag off? Akradecki 16:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You guys are just ferociously steamed up that someone tagged an article you OWN. All my comments about the inappropriate use of jargon and etc., above appear to have been ignored also. All this energy pounding it into the newbie's head that this didn't read exactly like a brochure of specs, because of the humiliation of having a personal article tagged, AFTER agreeing that it did read like an ad, energy that could have been spent improving jargon, making the article friendly to the non-specialist reader, dealing with problems with the article, but instead it's still full of the same problems when I posted the tag, but, there, you win the argument, it wasn't an advertisement, I'll put the appropriate clean-up tags on your princess. KP Botany 22:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Hampshire incident

I'm including the NH crash mainly because it caused such a long search effort, and went undiscovered for so long (Since that state is about as big as the county I live in, I find that hard to get my brain around, but then again, we don't have trees here in the Mojave desert), and because it directly led to the change in ELT requirements. In researching the incident, much of the info is preserved on the net by the UFO groupies, so I included that (with head shaking) because while it is absurd, the incident certainly caused a stir in that community, and so I thought that, from a cultural-impact perspective, it should be met. However, I shan't be too miffed if other editors shake their head with equal vigor and decide that such material really doesn't belong here. Akradecki 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, I'm OK with it, having not heard of it before. One concern of mine is the length of that and the Stewart section. However, as I don't see links to articles on the incidents (I assume there aren't any), that's probably unavoidable. Also, the terms "dense forest" and "densely forested" appear in succeeding sentences in the middle of the NH paragraph. I wans't sure which one to take out to have the best reading, so I left it alone. If this is too critical, please let me know. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Too critical? Heck, no. It's much appreciated. I know you and Joseph and I butt heads sometimes, but overall, I'm quite pleased with the way the team effort goes. Akradecki 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
After thinking on your point on the length of the incidents, I'm wondering if at least the NH incident shouldn't be split off into its own article. I just re-read the detailed NTSB report, and there's a whole bunch of factors in this accident, aside from the ELT policy impact and the rather amusing UFO stuff. Seems the crew was all screwed up on the ILS, and just continued to misjudge where they were, attibuting it to ground equipment failure. Definitely some lessons to be learned from the incident. So, what does everyone think...leave as is or split off and summarize here? Suggestions for new article name? Akradecki 19:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like the incident is notable enough for an articleof it's own, especially if you have that much more info. As for a title, I'm not familar enough with aircraft incident articles to know if there's a convention. That said, how does Learjet crash in New Hampshire sound? - BillCJ 19:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the NH incident should be split off. Also, I think we should trim the Payne Stewart incident -- in many other "Accidents and incidents sections" for various aircraft and airlines, the goal is to be brief if there is another article that could hold more detail (eg. the Payne Stewart article.) —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I just finished creating an article called 1996 New Hampshire Learjet crash. Name was created after finding this discussion which references disaster naming conventions. Will also work on the Stewart entry, trimming it. Bill and Joseph, your input/cleanup of the crash article is, of course, invited. Akradecki 19:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, how does the Stewart entry sound now? Akradecki 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Much better. Thanks. It tells just enough information...no point in telling the story in detail twice. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stewart crash

I'm also wondering if the Stewart incident should become its own article. In the last 10 years, the NTSB has only done 35 "major" investigations, and this was one of them, which makes it quite notable, in my view. The NTSB has tons of info, and there's a lot of "lessons learned" material, as well. Thoughts? Akradecki 20:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I do remember this incident, and it is definitely notable enough to have its own article. I took a quick look at the stewart article, and there is some detail there too. It might be best to coordinate with that article's editors on this too, since it is relevant to that page. - BillCJ 23:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point...I've posted to the Payne talk page. Akradecki 23:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've started building the article at User:Akradecki/Sandbox if anyone wants to follow the progress or do a progressive copyedit. Akradecki 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It's done and up at 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash, along with a note of explanation on the talk page. It could probably use a good copyedit, if anyone wants to jump in. Akradecki 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever

I changed my mind, you all want a crummy article not readable by a general audience, you can keep it. But when you bring airplane articles up for FAC and they get trounced because they're all written like this, don't ask why--jargon laden, unreadable lists of specs are not articles about airplanes, they're brochures or spec sheets. That's apparently what Wiki project airplane wants and will badger attack and mock anyone in order to keep. KP Botany 22:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been holding off saying this since your first "jargon" reference, but will say it now, using an example: you criticized the word "turbofan" as jargon. Don't you realize that this is the purpose of wikilinks, those blue words? It's so that the correct term can be used (yes, turbofan and not "jet" is the correct term) and still provide the reader who doesn't know what the word is a means of learning more. I'm disappointed in how you've reacted. You have a lot to offer, but instead of actually doing the work, all you do is try to tell others how to do it. I'll reiterate what I said much earlier...if you think you know how a particlular sentence could be reworded, then just do it! Akradecki 22:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this point. If every Wikipedia article explained absolutely every term, it'd result in inflated articles with duplicated content. Why explain what a turbofan is, or oversimplify, when Wikilinks serve the purpose? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/a/Talk%7ELearjet_35_36_7de5.html"