Talk:2020 Coulson Aviation Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash

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: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The aircraft, N134CG, 45 days prior to its collision

• ... that a Lockheed EC-130Q aeroplane crashed after performing a waterbombing just 190 feet in the air? Source: https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/5781842/ao-2020-007-final.pdf – ATSB page 6
  • Reviewed: N/A

Moved to mainspace by GMH Melbourne (talk). Self-nominated at 14:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2020 Coulson Aviation Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• New enough (moved to mainspace on the same day of the nomination), has sufficient length, no copyright violation concerns per Earwig. Hook is interesting and sourced, it also appears in the article. Image is freely used, clear, and used in article. No QPQ required–this is the nominator's fourth DYK nomination. Good work on the article! ~ Tails Wx 02:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2020 Coulson Aviation Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 14:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Starting review. Comments will come below. Z1720 (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments below:

• The lede is quite short. Is there anything to add to this section?
• I'm surprised there is no information on the aftermath of this event. Is there any information on that? How did procedures change after this event?
• "about 58 km to the east of Adaminaby." Suggest using the convert template on this to give imperial.
• Suggest merging the three headings in the "Victims" section to prevent one-paragraph sections, per MOS:OVERSECTION.

• Information on the foundation created in McBeth's memory should be included.

Image review:

• Suggest adding ALT text per MOS:ALT
• Image licences are fine.

Source review:

• Sources look fine.
• Source check not completed yet.
• Earwig not checked yet.

I'll place this on hold. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thank you so much for your review and sorry for the delay in replying.

I have tried to add to the lede but unfortunately I couldn't find much to add to it. I have looked at other aviation accident FAs and found that an extra paragraph is usually added to the lede when there is more circumstance to the accident (ie. a search, hijacking, etc.). Is there anything else you recommend I add?

I will added an aftermath section momentarily.

about 58 km to the east of Adaminaby. Suggest using the convert template on this to give imperial.  Done

Suggest merging the three headings in the "Victims" section to prevent one-paragraph sections, per MOS:OVERSECTION.  Done

Information on the foundation created in McBeth's memory should be included.  Done

Suggest adding ALT text per MOS:ALT  Done GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: I have added a section on the aftermath under the investigation section called 'Findings and recommendations'. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@GMH Melbourne: These recommendations are good, but what happened after? Were any of these recommendations put in place, and if so how? The article should describe how this crash changed (or did not change) aviation policy or procedures. There can also be information about its legacy by mentioning the charity set up in one of the victim's memory. Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: I have added the aftermath section detailing what has been done since the accident, what policies have changed as a result, and also info about the foundation. Also note I have added a couple of images (all available under Creative Commons + I also added ALTs to them). GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

After fixing some concerns myself, I can say that this article passes this GAN. Great work. Z1720 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/us-widows-of-air-tanker-crew-to-sue-rural-fire-service/news-story/a47052db00ba44e34d5d671f870973af GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)