Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

2015 Shoreham Airshow crash has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 8, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 22, 2015.

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 22, 2017, August 22, 2020, and August 22, 2022.

Aviation: Accidents

	Aviation portal 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
	This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sussex Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Wrong location referenced for airport and crash site.

There is No mention of Lancing even though the airport and the crash were both in lancing not Shoreham. Tried editing but removed. 86.16.123.86 (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lancing is listed as the location of the airport in other wiki pages but not mentioned here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_City_Airport PrinceAndrewoops (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Trains2050 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): I am very happy with spelling and grammar. Prose is quite clear and does not use a lot of technical language and understandable to a broad audience. However can you please rephrase this line: Hill, the pilot, was thrown clear of the aircraft in his ejection seat, which was live when the aircraft departed from North Weald.

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
I run the article through checks. Both automatic and manual, chance of plagiarism is very low.
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:
On hold. Great article, please can you just change the line that I stated above. Trains2050 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trains2050: Reworded, and clarified that the live seat posed an additional danger to rescuers. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Thanks so much for making these changes! After reviewing the criteria, I am confident that no further changes are needed so I am passing this article. Thanks again for your cooperation during theis review. Have a great day! Trains2050 (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trains2050: and thank you for the review! Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash was the United Kingdom's deadliest airshow disaster since the 1952 Farnborough Airshow crash? Source: https://archive.today/20150823211045/http://tvnewsroom.org/newslines/world/shoreham-airshow-crash-pilot-in-critical-condition-97709/
- ALT1: ... that no Shoreham Airshow has either taken place or been announced since the 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash? Source: http://www.shorehamairshow.co.uk/ , https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35364481 , http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/15045789.Organisers_reveal_Shoreham_Airshow_will_not_return_in_2017/
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nathaniel H. Gates

Improved to Good Article status by Mjroots (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2015 Shoreham Airshow crash; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Comment - another angle for a hook is the 7 years it took for the inquest to take place. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review underway... Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- The article, which was started on the date of the crash, was nominated on 8 March 2023, the date it was approved as a Good Article.
- I have reviewed the Good Article review, and all seems to be in order.
- Both hooks are accurate and are supported by various reliable sources.
- Good-quality sources are used throughout. The quality of the prose is also good.
- Unfortunately, the article was featured in the prose section of the "On this day" section of the Main Page on 22 August 2022 (link), which makes it ineligible for DYK on the face of it (based on DYK criterion 1c). A shame, as this is clearly a high-quality and important article which would benefit from appearing again on the Main Page, especially since significant further developments have happened since August 2022 in relation to the inquest. I wonder if we could invoke WP:IAR in view of this...?

Let's get some more thoughts on this from experienced DYK personnel. I would be happy to support the article appearing on DYK despite its appearance at "On This Day" within the last year, in view of the updates which have happened since then. In its present state the article and both hooks are suitable for DYK except for this issue. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: would you like to make a request for an IAR exemption at WT:DYK? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Nah, just withdraw. When I nominated this I didn't realize it had been on OTD last year. I think I saw that it appeared in 2020 and thought that it was okay without realizing that it appeared last year. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential edit war

@ED12345555 and Toddy1: we're not going to edit war over whether or not the United Kingdom is linked in the lede, are we. It would be a pity to have to open my banhammer case this side of Xmas. Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]