Talk:Linda Finch

Linda Finch was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 11, 2020 Good article nominee Not listed March 23, 2021 Good article nominee Not listed June 4, 2021 Good article nominee Listed February 26, 2023 Good article reassessment Delisted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 23, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Linda Finch is the first person to complete Amelia Earhart's unfinished final flight using the same aircraft type, a Lockheed L-10 Electra? Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Biography B‑class This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aerospace biography project.

This article is a new look at an interesting figure that has a tie-in to the Earhart mystique. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Didn't Anne Pellegreno complete Amelia Earhart's journey in 1967, using a Lockheed L-10 owned by Trans Canada Air? 216.174.43.195 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. Did not notice her name previously, however now that I am looking into it perhaps it could be another article. I have seen at this website what they say and I notice they use the wording "....similar aircraft (a Lockheed 10A Electra)..." for Pellegreno and for Finch "....a restored 1935 Lockheed Electra 10E." I'll look into this further and give you updates. If I can find enought material, perhaps a complete article. Do you have details on Pellegreno that you are fimilar with? --Doug ^talk 17:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The uniqueness of Finch’s flight is that it was done in a rare 1935 Lockheed L-10E Electra, very similar to Amelia Earhart's. About the only exception to the original is that Finch's Electra was equipped with modern navigation and communication equipment whereas Earhart's had primitive radio communications and Finch’s Electra L-10E was modified to carry 1,800 gallons of fuel, nearly twice the capacity of Earhart's.

The Electra was produced in several variants, for both civilian and military customers. Lockheed built a total of 149 Electras.

Electra 10A

Powered by two Pratt & Whitney R-985-13, 450 hp. each; 101 produced.

• Three built as Y1C-36 / C-36 / UC-36.
• Fifteen impressed as C-36A, but later re-designated UC-36A.
• Three built as XR20-1 / R20-1 for Secretary of the Navy.
• One built as Y1C-37 / C-37 / UC-37 for Chief of National Guard Bureau

Electra 10-E

Powered by Pratt & Whitney R-1340-49 radials of 600 hp (450 kW) each; 15 produced. The version used by Amelia Earhart.

Finch came up with the idea of recreating Earhart's flight in 1994 when she found the remains of one of only two flight-worthy Electra 10Es in existence. Other pilots have retraced the 1937 flight, but this was the first in an aircraft almost identical to Earhart's Lockheed L-10 Electra aircraft. Finch flew a restored 1935 Lockheed Electra 10E, the same make and model aircraft as Earhart on her last journey.--Doug ^talk 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article refers to the aircraft as a model 10A Electra. This is not correct. Finch's airplane was a model 10E, the same as Earhart's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobvicki (talk • contribs) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Linda, I note that you added some promotional statements to this article. I have removed them as it's not appropriate for an neutral, objective encyclopedia to include contact details for an appeal such as you added. Also many of your edits are unreferenced so they will have to be removed as well. Thanks, MurielMary (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a source for:

• She is also a commercial licensed pilot for this and other types of aircraft.^{[citation needed]}
• At the CAF, she flew World War II aircraft, including the T-6 and Corsair. She wanted to tell the story of the planes and their pilots. The Commemorative Air Force (CAF) brought to life the heroes and the struggle to defend our nation and allies.^{[citation needed]}
• Finch was the head coordinator and primary sponsor of the CAF Republic P-47D Thunderbolt, (S/N: 44-90368, marked as 44-33240).^{[citation needed]}
• It reached 2.2 million children worldwide, used by more than 76,000 educators. It was deemed by the Department of Education to be the first large internet educational program of its kind.

–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell I am not sure what to do about some lawsuits that I have found that relate to:

• multiple instances of negligence of nursing home residents, such as significant bed sores (which seems in part caused Texas to enact a law to double the fines for repeat occurrences)
• the death of 91 year old male resident whose death was partially attributed to high sugar levels, which were supposed to be monitored by staff
• some sort of financial mismanagement related to HUD loans.

I can come up with at least six sources for this information. Here's a link] of hundreds of hits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ending the Business career category with something like: "There were lawsuits tried against Finch and her businesses related to patient care and HUD financing." - and add a few sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes = the principle of KISS I believe would be best here. Many times that is best AND here is one of those instances. YOUR wording looks real good to me. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson we can reconvene here so as not to make a jumble of the CCI page. This article will be harder to process than others because it has significant content that was not written by DC. However, from the first version of the article as created by DC, I can see there are challenges. From

• this version

my next step normally would be to see if any of the text from sources that can't be checked (aren't available online) is still in the article, in which case it would be presumptively deleted. But I see that

1. Pelt is no longer in the article
2. Civil Air Patrol is no longer in the article

And those present a problem because what I have most often seen in DC's work is that he later switched citations to other sources (that is, he changed citations to point elsewhere than from where he actually lifted text), so that a) results in failed verification (as the source he switched to didn't always verify all the content), and b) means that if you just check content against what is in the article now, we may miss the real source of copyvio.

So, I'm afraid one has to go diff by diff. Do you have the Pelt book?

I see another big problem in the very first version in that many of the sources used are not reliable sources. The same problem results; DC often later switched those to other (reliable) sources, which obscures the copyvio, because the citation pointing at text isn't always the one it was taken from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem here is that almost all of the first diff is likely to be copyvio from sources that are inaccessible or no longer available, so we have to determine if any of that text is still in the article and presumptively delete or rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough, as in other articles, we find much later, in this series of edits that DC replaces those sources with other sources. Often when he did that, the copyvio from the original source remained, and/or the text is not verified by the new source. So it will take some elbow grease to sort this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

SandyGeorgia, Thanks for your reply here about next steps for ensuring that there are no copyright violations. Between Doug Coldwell and Aussie Article Writer, there are about 220 versions that would need to be reviewed.

I am not sure, but I am wondering if it would be easier and cleaner to start a new draft of the article using the cited sources and rewrite the article in draft space or a sandbox, with proper paraphrasing, from scratch. If there was content copied from another source, that would not be picked up in the rewrite. That would require this article to be deleted and the clean article moved over to article space with this title. What do you think about that?

I would be happy to do it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the Pelt book. But I could see if I could find it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have Butler, Duffy or Jones? If not, text from those sources (if written by DC) should be WP:PDEL'd.

Holy cow, if you are willing to rewrite the article, that would SURELY be a better use of everyone's time. Because ... from what I've seen of DC's work so far, the content is almost never supported by the sources, because he retrofit sources later that obscured copyvio. In article like this, where good editors worked on top of his original content, who knows what we ended up with, and checking through it all will be horribly time consuming. If you're game to work that way, I say we put a note on the CCI page saying you are rewriting in draft space. But as I said above, the problem is that we don't know how much of the wording in the original article creation was lifted from those sources, which aren't accessible, so you almost have to start over, rewriting everything in your own words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Von Pelt book is on archive.org here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent; examining that will at least give us an idea whether there is copyvio in the first version. If so, this will be a slog. If not, more encouraging. Do you have the WP:Who Wrote That? extension? It could be very useful in deciding whether to start from scratch here and is worth installing; it identifies specific passages written by each editor.

I am at the end of a long day and headed for bed now, but will catch up with you tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

The Von Pelt book is on archive.org here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be happy to rewrite the article from scratch. I have access to Pelt - and I will create content only from that and the sources that I can access. My first place to start would be the books that are listed in Sources. I found out that I made 113 edits, and I remember Finch is very interesting.

This would mean that I would start the article in Draft or sandbox space. When done, ask for this article to be deleted. Then move the rewrite back to Linda Finch in article space.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. If I am doing a complete rewrite, why do I need to use the WP:Who Wrote That? extension?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ... I was just hoping to save you from having to do that, but since you are willing, that is much better news. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent; that is very good news. I'll go put a note on the CCI that work is underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]