Jump to content

User talk:Melbushr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Melbushr, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please complete the student training, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Additional Materials

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aviation automation (November 4)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This looks more like a report rather than a formal encyclopedia article. Cheers,
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Aviation automation has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Aviation automation. Thanks! LaMona (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aviation automation (November 18)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mr. Guye was:
The article is too technical and full of jargon for most readers to understand. Please make it easier to understand. I also cite LaMona's concern as a reason to decline, but I disagree with SinisterTwister.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Mr. Guye (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Melbushr, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mr. Guye (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PEER REVIEW - vcheng52

[edit]

"For a more broad understanding of aviation history, please see: History of aviation" - put this in the "See Also" section

due to the requirement for additional monitoring and computer programming of electronic flight instrument systems.

Over-reliance and Over-trusting automation can lead a pilot to lose situational awareness

Although there are benefits, automation has ushered in a new set of potential flight hazards ranging from fatal data input errors to significantly increased head-down time during key phases of flight.

This leads to increased ‘head-down’ time during an already high workload phase of flight. Explain head-down time or link to an explanation.

run on sentence: A relevant example is the crash of Air New Zealand’s flight 901 into Mount Erebus, caused by the input of incorrect data into the navigation system after a route change. The pilot failed to independently verify the accuracy of the new flight plan (26 nautical miles off-course), presumably because they blindly trusted the automated system.[4]

run on sentence: Research reveals that while the highly automated aircrafts of today are much safer than those of yesterday, there is still a significant need for improvement. Namely in the field of training pilots to better understand, use and respond to the automated systems, especially during abnormal phases of flight

please explain or link to head-down time

Very good detailed article. There's a little bit of repetition and a lot of detail that you might want to cut out but still a very good article.

The primrose path to perdition is accepting the word of a fellow course member as a genuine critique of your work. They have as little expertise here as you do. Some of the evidence is that they have not signed their comment. While criticising the work of others may be part of your course assignment, I suspect you need to criticise the work as if you knew about editing Wikipedia, not simply as a generic class assignment. YOUr course leader needs to guide you all rather differently. Fiddle Faddle 10:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aviation automation (November 30)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
There are some issues here. A wikipedia article is very different from an ordinary class project. We do not require the article to be self contained. Instead it must Wikilink to other concepts. I agree that this does. However it also discusses the material, seeming to reach conclusions. We may not reach conclusions. This is termed WP:OR or, sometimes WP:SYNTH. We may record faithfully the conclusions others have drawn.

The section "The purpose of automation is to improve performance and efficiency by easing a pilot’s workload to reduce the possibility of human error. While humans today have access to much more information than they previously did, our cognitive abilities required to process that information has not increased ..." is an example of narrative text that either draws or appears to draw conclusions.

"Human factors experts argue.." Who are these experts. Where are the references to cite what they say?

With regard to your references, your course leader seems not to have guided you, or you have missed that guidance. Ideally please add links to online versions of the references. This is not compulsory, but we write for ordinary readers who like the instant gratification of being able to see what is written in the reference with ease.

The great big photograph may be pretty, but it is intrusive. I failed to spot the start of the article because of it. Please thumbnail pictures. Those interested can click them.

Please talk to your course leader. They have resources to guide them in guiding you. We make no special allowances for class assignments when they get accepted as articles, and adapting to our style is tough. This is why we organise special education support
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Fiddle Faddle 10:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question

[edit]

Hello, Melbushr! I'm Timtrent. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Aviation automation has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Aviation automation. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your invitation to make a further review

[edit]

One of the problems with offering a second review on the same topic is that one stands too close to the draft, and may either be too pedantic or not pedantic enough.. I have found through rather longer experience than I care to mention that a different pair of eyes almost always produces the best outcome for the eventual article. IT may be disappointing, but I will decline your kind invitation. This will not, your professor assures me, affect any final grading. They recognise that WP:AFC reviews are outside their tutorial control. Fiddle Faddle 17:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Aviation automation has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Aviation automation. Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final Article: Aviation Automation

[edit]

Hi Dr. Kearns,

Here is the link to my article on aviation automation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aviation_automation

Unfortunately, I did not manage to get it onto the main space. My 4th submission, which I had high hopes for it being accepted due to my compliance with an experienced editor's suggestions was put on hold. The reason cited was that it would not be reviewed until the "issue" with our course had been addressed.

As for my contribution, I wrote the entire article myself; I was hoping that it would be published so that the article could receive contributions from other editors and grow over time.

Moving forward

[edit]

Hi Melbushr. I think one important thing that your draft still lacks is a lead section. WP:LEAD is a good place to get started figuring out what that should look like. In short, the lead is supposed to provide a brief summary of the major points of the article. A reader should be able to read the lead and get a sense of what the article is about. The first sentence should be a brief statement about what the article covers - something like: "Aviation automation refers to [whatever it is]." In the second sentence, perhaps you could explain why this is important, and continue from there hitting the main points that you cover in the article. You're probably looking about a paragraph, maybe two. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aviation automation (December 4)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
Lacks a lead section. Please see WP:MOSLEAD And, while you are crafting that, please do attempt links to online versions of the references
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aviation automation (December 31)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RadioFan was:
Lacks a lead section. Again, please see WP:MOSLEAD
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
RadioFan (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Aviation automation

[edit]

Hello, Melbushr. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Aviation automation".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Avicennasis @ 18:20, 18 Kislev 5777 / 18:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melbushr&oldid=1078391302"