Jump to content

Talk:2007 Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76 crash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article2007 Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76 crash 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
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 6, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 28, 2007.
Current status: Delisted good article

Image

[edit]

It would be nice to get a real image, not just a stock photo, for this page. I've seen some on Yahoo! News [1], but I don't know much about all the copyright stuff. – Zntrip 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy working on Levina 1 tonight, but I'll put one of those photos on tomorrow. Thanks - I've been looking for decent images for this since the plane went down. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image needs to be removed. It is being considered for deletion and almost certainly will be deleted as blatant copyright violation. The "fair use justification" does not cite any valid reasons why this use could be considered "fair". -- Selket Talk 08:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

Overall, the article is pretty good. Not quite at GA level yet, but almost there. First, the quick version:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Suggestions

[edit]

The main problem with this article is the prose. While it is generally possible to understand the gist of the article, there are a lot of grammatical errors that need to be fixed. The article is in desperate need of a copyedit; perhaps ask at the League of Copyeditors for some assistance. Some specific points (note that this does not encompass every prose-related issue, but is just a starting point):

  1. Is it "Il-76" or "IL-76"? Both versions are used in the article text. If both are correct, use the capital L as the former can look like "II" (two capital i's). If only one version is correct, make sure that there is consistency.
  2. There are a number of occurrences of ambiguous pronoun references that need to be fixed.
  3. The Background section talks about two plane crashes, but switches between them; better organization is needed.
  4. Avoid conjunction repetition, especially in the same sentence: "...then separated from the main fuselage of the aircraft and plunged into the Indian Ocean, whilst the rest of the plane flew along the beach at a low altitude whilst on fire before crashing."
  5. There is no consistency for date formatting. I suggest using the full date for each (ie. March 24 2007), and remember to wikilink it.

While the article is very well cited, there are problems with specific references: #5 is a broken link, and #14 gives a server not found error. Also, while not critical, it would be good to eventually replace the references that do not use a cite template with one that does.

My final concern, though again not critical, is the title. It's overly wordy where I'm not sure it needs to be. This isn't a GA failing point, but something to consider.

Conclusion

[edit]
  • Article in heavy need of copyediting.
  • A couple broken refs should be fixed.

As such, I have put the GA nomination on hold for one week, pending repairing the above, which I think is doable. Once the fixes have been made, I'd be glad to approve the article for GA. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit, first pass

[edit]

In response to the above, I'm taking a swipe at the copyedit. Some notes:

  • The title is indeed wordy, and will be fixed following the copyedits to conform with aircraft accident standards
  • The correct designation is I(capital i)l{small L)-76.
  • I've moved the text pertaining to the second aircraft to its own section, as it's not directly relevant to the shootdown, and to clarify things.
  • As the cause is alleged, but not concluded, to have been a shootdown, I'm making adjustments in the text to that affect
  • I've converted the altitude figures to feet, rather than meters, as this is the international aviation standard
  • The second paragraph of the "shootdown" section, that dealt with the wreckage and dead, was moved up to the overview section
  • The "background" header was renamed "overview", a standard for aircraft accident articles.
  • I've removed the "one of the largest in the world" claims, as the wikiarticle on the aircraft doesn't make such a claim
  • Redundant statments were removed from the "aftermath" section.

I would appreciate it if additional feedback is provided, and I'll address any new concerns.Akradecki 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a pretty good copyedit. The article is much better than it was at first review. Here is a comprehensive list of what I think is left to be fixed:
  • "The aircraft thought to have been shot down, but Somalia remains adament the crash was accidental." – verb missing between aircraft and thought (probably is or was); adament → adamant
  • There needs to be some consistency in the units of measurement. In short: provide conversions for all units, use the short form of the unit in the conversion (m vs metres), clear up which unit is being referred to by "tonnes" (use wikilinks); please read the guidelines at WP:MOSNUM#Units of measurement for complete details.
  • "Registered as EW-78849, the accident aircraft had been on a chartered cargo flight carrying equipment to Ugandan AMISOM peacekeepers in the Somali capital of Mogadishu." accident aircraft sounds really awkward. Perhaps "the aircraft involved in the accident"?
  • "Prime Minister Ali Gedi" – "Somali Prime Minister ..." would be clearer as to who is being talked about. However, I'm not sure if this whole sentence, beyond "Operations at the airport were not affected by the crash" is necessary or relevant to the scope of the article. I'll leave that to your discretion.
  • "The plane appears to have been struck by the missile at an altitude of height of approximately 500 feet (150 metres))" – extra bracket after metres.
  • "when one wing exploded, and separated from the aircraft" – no need for the comma after exploded.
  • "The Somali authorities originally stated that the cause of the crash was unknown, and have since maintained that the crash is the result of an accident, and that it had not been shot down." – bold text a bit awkwardly phrased, perhaps "... maintained that the crash occurred as a result of an accident, and that it had not been shot down". Are there any more details of what this accident was? If there aren't, there's nothing you can do about it, but it kind of leaves a gap as to what they are claiming.
  • "However, an Islamist Web site, published claims the plane was indeed struck by a missile, but has not issued any claim of responsibility, unlike claims it has made in relation to other recent attacks in the area." No comma necessary after Web site (which should be "web site"); perhaps better phrased as "However, while not claiming responsibility for this specific attack, an Islamist web site published claims that the plane was indeed struck by a missile."
  • "The area is now being guarded from interference by Somali soldiers." – unclear whether the area is being guarded by Somali soldiers or from them.
  • Had the crew of this plane already repaired the previous plane? The majority of the article makes it sound like they were heading to it, but the first sentence in Previous shootdown attempt refers to the engineers who "worked on repairing" (past tense) the other plane.
  • There is a problem with the overall organization of the article. Firstly, I'm not so sure that an Overview section is needed, as the information in an overview should really be contained in the lead if it is critical, or else within the other relevant sections. As the previous shootdown attempt happened chronologically first, it'd probably be useful to talk about that first, as, if I understand correctly, part of the reason for the flight was to bring supplies to repair the first plane. Consider the following:
    • Retitle the first paragraph of Overview as "Flight overview". Remove the last half of the last sentence (", and their bodies were later flown back to Belarus.") for now. Move Previous shootdown attempt to be a subsection of this section, and tie it into the scope of the article (ie. why the previous flight is relevant to this flight -- because they were carrying supplies).
    • Create a new section called Crash or something alike. In it, describe chronologically the relevant sections of the flight (The first sentence of Shootdown, and "Just before the crash..." to the end of the section). Add the second paragraph from Overview. Add timing information if available and relevant.
    • Create a new section called Alleged shootdown. Include the information about the alleged shootdown from Shootdown and elsewhere. Perhaps add/move some information about Somalia's response to the claim.
    • The Reactions and aftermath is good where it is. Unless you choose to move some information about Somalia's response to the previous section as detailed above, there is nothing really needed to be changed here. Integrate the removed sentence from the Overview section about the bodies being flown home.
  • Article completely re-organised. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that these are just suggestions; however, the prose, while being much better, is still not up to GA standards, in my opinion. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 15:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

[edit]

I see Akradecki has already started this job, so I won't do it myself, but just a heads-up to him that this is where I had got so far:

Background

[edit]

The Il-76

[edit]

The aircraft involved was an Ilyushin Il-76 cargo plane, one of the largest of its kind worldwide. Il-76s are 47 metres long and have the capacity to carry a payload of up to 45 tonnes of cargo.[1] They require a minimum crew of six.[2]

Previous attempted shootdown

[edit]

Fourteen days prior to the crash another Transaviaexport Il-76 was the subject of another attempted shootdown in the same area;[3] the plane in the that incident was carrying Ugandan peacekeepers and made a successful emergency landing after being struck by a rocket propelled grenade.[1]

The crash flight

[edit]

The plane had been on a chartered cargo flight carrying equipment to Ugandan AMISOM peacekeepers in the Somali capital of Mogadishu.[1] The plane was carrying a full crew of six, plus four Transaviaexport engineers that worked on repairing the other Il-76.[2] Much of the equipment on board the lost aircraft was for repairing the aircraft damaged earlier,[3] the rest of it being humanitarian aid.[4] Somali officials claimed both aircraft incidents occurred due to technical failures rather than armed attacks.[5]

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Mohamed Olad Hassan. "Cargo Plane Is Shot Down in Somalia". The Washington Post. Associated Press.
  2. ^ a b 'Somali plane was shot down' - News24.com - Obtained March 25, 2007.
  3. ^ a b "All 11 dead in plane shot down over Mogadishu". Press TV.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference The Independant was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ 11 crew of cargo plane shot down in Somali capital die - The Star Tribune - Obtained March 25, 2007.

Rename

[edit]

Despite my statement earlier that I'd do a rename, I'm holding off to get input. As the flight doesn't appear to have had a flight number, here are some possibilities that would fit our general guidelines:

  • Transaviaexport Cargo Airline Somali charter flight
  • 2007 Mogadishu Ilyushin Il-76 crash
  • 2007 Mogadishu Transaviaexport Cargo Il-76 crash

Personally, I prefer the last of the three. Any comments or alternat suggestions? Akradecki 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too prefer the last one; it's shorter and has slightly more information (location). I say be bold and go ahead with it. And that's some amazing copyediting, by the way! Much apreciated! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as the name meets the guidelines of both the Aviation project and the Disaster Management project, I'll go do that. And thanks for the encouraging comments! Akradecki 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. My only problem so far is that the "on of the largest in the world" claims were sourced, so rather than remove them here, I believe they should be added to the article on the Il-76. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but it's one of those things that, yeah, there's sourcing, but the sourcing isn't even close to being accurate. For instance, the max takeoff weight of the 747 freighter is almost 2x as much as the Il-76, and the Russian's AN-124 is almost 3x as much (this one is the largest commercial cargo aircraft in the world, and I suspect that the reporter who wrote that source was confusing the two, and there is some visual resemblance). Akradecki 20:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, leave it out. The only stuff I've picked up in this field is self taught from a keen interest, so I have to go along with what these things say. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of airline and crew names

[edit]

I have changed the name of the airline and moved the pages (including all linking pages) in accordance with the actual spelling of the airline - TransAVIAexport - this is how the name is registered with both Belarus and Russian aviation authorities, and is also visible on the fuselage of the aircraft.

And in case this is usual information for someone to add in, here is a list of the crew who were killed:

  • Igor Leonidovich Bashkevich - Commander of the Air Squadron
  • Aleksandr Viktorovich Gomanykov - Co-Pilot
  • Gennady Aleksandrovich Trashkov - Navigator
  • Ivan Ivanovich Gab - Onboard engineer
  • Oleg Viktorich Kanunnikov - Radio operator
  • Aleksandr Ivanovich Zernin - Senior load attendant
  • Igor Mikhailovich Gres - Load attendant
  • Oleg Yevgenyushovich Bondaronok - Aircraft technician
  • Mikhail Ivanovich Baglov - Aircraft engineer
  • Dmitry Sergeevich Nosnikov - Aircraft technician
  • Artem Borisovich Sychugov - Aircraft technician

--Russavia 10:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the information in. Until very recently we didn't include this, but the Virginia Tech massacre prompted a review of this, and now lists of victims are considered acceptable again. Thank you, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External link - warning needed?

[edit]

The external link to http://www.shabelle.net/news/ne2619.htm ...

Opening the link shows photos of bodies strewn on the ground. Now whilst this doesn't offend me, nor does it distress me, as Wikipedia is used by users of all ages, and given the content of those photos, is it standard on wikipedia to provide a 'graphic warning' or something of the like in regards to such links? --Russavia 12:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really mind it either, but I guess there's no harm and much potential benefit to a warning, so I've added one in. Good thinking! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Pass

[edit]

Due to the extensive changes made on this article since the review, I now deem it ready to be promoted to GA status. Congratulations to all involved, and be sure to keep up the good work on this and other articles! —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 15:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me, as well, and big thanks Sandman...your dedication to bringing this article up to speed is certainly inspiring. Akradecki 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 ft or 500 ft...

[edit]

{{contradict}} The article mentions the pilot informing ATC of a suspected fire in number 2 at 10,000. Later it says witnesses saw a SAM hit it 500 feet off the ground. It seems unlikely in the extreme that the aircrew would not have noticed being hit. I'm inclined to think the 10,000 feet figure is incorrect, as the article says "just after take off while at 10,000 feet...". 100 feet sounds more plausible for the term just after takeoff being applied to a large cargo plane, but 1000 seems realistic too. Anynobody 05:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it to contradict at all. I mean, if a plane was struck by a missile at 500ft on takeoff, and hit the engine or nearby (which it likely did), causing engine fire warnings, there's a good chance the crew would believe something had 'gone bang' (geting technical, isn't it ;-) inside the engine itself, in which case they would be quite keen to just shut the engine down, pull the corresponding extuinguisher handle and attempt to fly on. 10,000ft and still burining... time to get back. The likely reason for the structural failure was, IMO, not directly the SAM strike, but the subsequent fire weakening the wing structure. I'll go ask the rest of the Air Crash Task Force for their opinions. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point, and actually had considered a similar scenario but after considering the following points I changed my mind. Most importantly, even on four engines, it takes a few minutes for an Il-76 to reach 10,000 feet (by a few I mean around 5 - 10 at the extreme). A plane like a F-15, Su-27, or Tornado is a different story, but cargo planes (especially if they're carrying cargo) don't climb very fast. The article mentions a fire warning at 10,000 and their intention to turn around for an emergency landing, in general the only time a pilot would proceed after an engine fire is during war or other special circumstances. This is because if the extinguisher doesn't put out the fire, the other three good engines won't help when the fuel tank explodes once the fire spreads to it. For the article to be correct, the aircraft would have been hit at 500 feet or several minutes before achieving ~10,000 and then having a fire break out, it sounds implausible. The damaged engine would either fail or indicate abnormal functioning, which I admit the crew might have missed, but image what a jet engine knocked out of balance must sound like. (If you're having difficulty, image how much louder your washing machine sounds when it's off balance compared to normal then scale the noise up several times.) Also, and this occurred to me as I typed, besides the engine there are hydraulic system lines/components in the wing and fuel tanks/lines. If it was hit by a missile, chances are some kind of fluid(s) were also leaking. Which should've attracted the attention of the crew sooner. Anynobody 11:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... If the engine died completely, though, they wouldn't have much chance to feel the fact that it was shaking their plane apart (an even better indicater, or so I believe, than the horrendous noise these things must make in trouble) because it wouldn't be; the same for noise. If we assume for the moment it was a heat-seeking missile, there's a good chance it scored a direct hit on the engine, thus preventing fuel leaks etc since fluid would only be dribbling out of the engine, and there are quick procedures to cut all this stuff from a failed engine in seconds. However, I'm not beyond spoting that that presents us an altogether different problem: is it possible that the drag of the failed engine was not sufficient to cause concern? As you say, big cargo planes climb real slow, so would 500ft be high enough for the autopilot to be on by that point and, if they shut the engine down quick enough for the autopilot not to cut out, is it possible that the drag was within compensatory limits for the autopilot, thus preventing the crew from realising the full seriousness of the situation and possible even causing them to ignore/disbelieve other warnings in the cockpit? Such confusion has been seen before in airliner cockpits, although no case comes close to the circumstances of this one. That said, very few such accidents are similar to each other, either, and it seems a potentialy realistic scenario... I don't know. Comments? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened, the Somali government are the ones saying a fire occurred at 10,000 feet. Witnesses all say it was hit at 500 feet and then crashed right after. I clarified that the contradiction comes from two different sources. Looking at a satellite image of the airport/city, assuming reports of the plane coming down just North of Mogadishu are correct, then the 500 ft hit seems to me more likely. (I'm not gonna put that in the article of course though, WP:OR would be thrown out the window if I did.)
My problem was that the article presented both accounts as the same story, and it just didn't make sense. Now that I know the government says one thing and the media reports another, the contradiction becomes more of a controversy (which is acceptable). Anynobody 05:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman even though I figured out the contradiction, in case you are curious here is what I would have said to continue the technical discussion, again in case you are curious (I don't want to come off as a know it all jackass). If the engine had died completely, right after being hit then shaking/noise wouldn't be the trouble sign. Instead the instruments for that engine would indicate lower (or no) temp, pressure, and RPM readings after the engine stops running or the sensors are destroyed. This situation would be apparent to the aircrew, assuming they didn't notice the hit itself or the instruments for the engine, by loss of airspeed (A plane with 3/4 engines isn't going to fly the same.
On a side note, I'm thinking a RPG was more likely (easily available there, cheap, low altitude, slow speed right after take off, is the best chance they would have and the Somalis seem to know how to hit aircraft with them.) I'll assume you are correct and it was a heat seeking SAM that squarely hit the engine. It would have thrown shrapnel/debris into the wing, fuselage and probably engine 1 too offering plenty of chances to create leaks, but I'll further assume the shrapnel missed fuel/hydraulic lines though and use the situation you described with fuel dribbling out of the damaged engine only. To be blunt;
  1. A dribble of jet fuel is still a fuel leak, which is pretty dangerous.
  2. If we assume they didn't notice the hit, they wouldn't have shut off fuel to the engine; resulting in more of a spray than a dribble. Anynobody 05:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points... Though I was thinking they might shut it down as an engine failure after the SAM took it out without realising the extent of the damage. But no matter; we now know the truth of the aparant contradiction, so I won't go on to develop my next argument further than that... After all, we both know now what the real situation was, and this could go on forever. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the theorizing interesting though, should you wish to continue you may post on my talk page. Anynobody 07:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May just do that. See you there! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, coming late to the party, and don't really have much to add, other than this is a great example of why CVRs and FDRs are such a good idea! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem on the "lateness". Do Soviet/Russian aircraft not have them? I assumed they had one or both, but as soon as I read your post it occurred to me the same government that put large nuclear reactors in regular buildings might just skimp on other essentials elsewhere. Anynobody 05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, there tends to be at least a bit of media hype about CVRs and FSRs when they are recovered, and I read a lot of news stuff when researching this crash, including a lot of later ones dealing with cause or aftermath that would likely have dealt with the contents of the 'black boxes' had they been recovered... and based on the crash pictures, recovery would not have been a particularly difficult issue. So I, too, doubt they existed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It actually doesn't surprise me. Many military transports don't use them, and keep in mind that in the old Soviet days, the line between a military transport and a civilian airliner were often quite blurred...Aeroflot was everything. So in the aftermath of the fall of communism and the rise of "real" civilian airlines, and their use of what are essentially military transports, like the Il-76, they didn't have the regulations or budget to do such expensive upgrades like CVRs and FDRs. Of course, that limits their routes. No doubt that's why (i.e. meeting more stringent FAA regs for aircraft and equipment) the Aeroflot Moscow-Los Angeles run uses an American-made 767! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying makes sense, and explains why one doesn't see Russian owned planes in the states very often. I can't speak for other nations Air Forces/Naval aviation but I'm pretty sure the US military had been using equipment similar to a CVR for quite a while, and more sure that all US military fixed wing aircraft today have both. (Not so much a safety measure as a way to track what causes the loss of expensive aircraft and monitor performance.)
The irony is that CVR/FDR equipment is expensive, but much cheaper than losing aircraft after aircraft due to a defect such equipment might detect. (In addition to answering questions in a case like this of course.) Anynobody 06:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:2007 Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76 crash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

This article requires some quick fixes to retain GA status. Reference #3 (The Washington Post) link is no longer available and need another credible source(s) to take its place. There appears to be room for improvement in the aftermath section. Investigations should be finished by now so more details can be added to the article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the concerns mentioned a month ago was addressed. This article is now delisted from GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archived references not used in the article

[edit]


--Jetstreamer Talk 19:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2007 Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 2007 Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on 2007 Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Mogadishu_TransAVIAexport_Airlines_Il-76_crash&oldid=1196501902"