Talk:BOAC Flight 712/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, take II. Let me read the article, the first review, and I'll let you hear my comments. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• General comment, the lede could do with some expansion. An article of this length could do with two full paragraphs of prose at the top.

 Done Lede expanded. Mjroots (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Citation 8: "Federal Aviation Authority." I think the last word is administration, not authority. (I know it is these days, and I think it always has been)

•  Done Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Three NFCC images. The FUR's of the first two are entirely logical, but I do wonder if the "Barbara Jane Harrison" one is truly necessary here.

• I think that the inclusion of the photo of BJH can be justified here. Her GC adds significantly to the notability of the accident. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 17 needs filling out to include author and pub. date, both of which are in the source.

•  Done Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• We could use some more details; how much longer is 27L than 05L? The article makes the selection of runway sound like a big deal, but some hard numbers would help. (Also, if memory serves, there is no 05R anymore at LHR?) I think both are now designated as 9/27, and have since been lengthened.

I've managed to find a ref for the length of 28 in 1968, before it was lengthened and renumbered in the early 1970s. Still looking for ref for 05R. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done ref found for length of 05R and added to article. Mjroots (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• This article needs a general copyedit for redundancies. One example, under "Passengers" there is "Mark Wynter, pop singer was a passenger on Flight 712." Where he is mentioned in the article implies that he was a passenger, so repeating it isn't necessary.

• Mark Wynter done. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Could the salvage and aircraft involved sections be consolidated?

•  Done Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The Queen awarded Barbara Jane Harrison a posthumous George Cross (GC), the only GC ever presented to a woman in peacetime." Citation? Further, "Harrison is the youngest ever female recipient of the George Cross.[15]" This sentence should be back where Harrison is discussed, I think.

• Not sure. The awards section is about the awards given in connection with the accident, not just BJH's GC. Being the higher award, it is discussed first, but there was also Davis-Gordon's BEM and Davis's MBE. For that reason, I'm opposed to the breakup of this section. If and when I can get a citation for Davis's MBE, that will be added. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about rearranging that paragraph only, not the entire article. That paragraph has a sentence about Harrison, one about Gordon, another about Harrison, one about John Davis, and then one more about Harrison. I think all three about Harrison should be in order, then discuss Gordon and Davis. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• None of the images have alt text

•  Done Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Two Disambig links: "G-ARWE (c/n 18373)" c/n links to MSN (disambiguation), which I understand. Any chance witionary has a real article on the concept? Also "Mayday" links to a disambig page.

• wikt:MSN says nothing on the subject, nor does wikt:cn. Mayday dablink fixed. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Could the book section be integrated into the aftermath? It just seems a little short for a level two header.

•  Done Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 3 needs to be reformatted

• Not sure. What is wrong with it? Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops. That's an actual template for citing that website. I forgot to look at the source, and just saw it as a not fully filled-out cite web template. Sorry. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I have for now, but I like to come back and do a second read-through at another session, so more may jump out at me later. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A few more comments. Good work expanding the lede, however, where is it documented that the presence of the check captain caused distractions?

 Fixed per the official report detailed in Ottaway's book. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• File:Barbarajaneharrison.jpg again. WP:NFCC requires ten things be met, two of which are, in my mind, troublesome in this article. Criterion 10 requires that the copyright holder be identified if possible. In this case, the link where the image came from is dead. Further, I'm not convinced it meets criterion 8; that seeing her face in this article really enhances readers' understanding.

Link works for me. Copyright holder in this case is unknown, probably Harrison's family. I've removed the image, not worth getting into an argument over. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• What makes [1] a reliable source? They appear to be focused on selling hotel rooms.

:Source seemed OK to me, but I've changed it to VC10.net, the same as the other runway length source (05R). Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had to revert back to the original source for now as other sources tried all show the extended runway length post October 1968. Agree that main focus of that website is selling hotel rooms, but it does give some useful history of LHR. I'll try and find a better source for this info if I can. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Likely relevant to the GA review, I'd like to point out that the article mentions Captain Cliff Taylor and Steward Bryan Taylor in the People involved section, but earlier only refers to either of them only by surname, which may cause confusion (the latter is mentioned in the second paragraph of the Fire section without introduction). --Paul_012 (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Hadn't realised there were two crew with same surname. It should now be clear in that para as to which Taylor is meant. Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion from HJ Mitchell

Bradjamesbrown asked me to chip in here, so I'll make a few observations:

• The lead could still use padding out since it's a summary, not an introduction
• The background section is very short and doesn't provide much background- could it be incorporated into the next section?
• What timezone are we in? GMT or BST?
• "Seconds after take off from Heathrow's then 9,000 feet (2,700 m) long runway 28L (now 27L),[2] there was an unexpected bang and the aircraft started vibrating."
  • How many seconds? Can the runway stats go somewhere else, they confuse the flow
  • Nowhere is it explained where or what Heathrow is
  • Do people expect bangs?
• MBE should be piped to Member of the Order of The British Empire, to provide context to those hovering over the link
• It needs a copyedit- not just a technical copyedit but a proper audit of grammar and prose
• The aftermath section is relatively short and probably doesn't need to be split into 3 subsections
• There is no mention of the awards between the lead and the awards section- surely what they did to earn them is relevant to the incident
• Likewise with aircraft- if you need a detailed section, fine, but it is worth mentioning in the section about the incident
• The honours should be linked in the awards section
• "The Queen" needs more context- Queen Elizabeth II would be sufficient
• It would be tidier to use a shorthand for the book and give the full details in a bibliography
• The fair-use rationales for File:G-ARWE-2.jpg and File:G-ARWE-1.jpg feel very generic and boilerplate- you need to explain why they are important to the article based around the WP:NFCC, especially 2, 3 and 8

The article is not in bad shape, but it needs to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to deal with the style issues. The content seems very good to me and the article is logically ordered, though some of the information that has specific sections would be valid elsewhere as well. I would also question the reliability of some the sources, but that will have to wait for a less stupid hour, I'm afraid. Questions/comments/clarifications are welcome here and/or on my talk page and I'll check back at a more sensible hour! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)