Jump to content

Talk:Adam Air

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Adam Air/Comments)
Former good article nomineeAdam Air was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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
March 10, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

1 January incident

[edit]

Media reported that an airliner lost contact today http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3175980/ The Boeing 737-400 was carrying 96 passengers, including seven children, four infants and six crew, Indonesia's El-Shinta radio reported. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1245632,00.html?f=dta

Any reason why this incident shouldn't be covered in the main article? I reverted the edit which removed mention of it. Ζεύς 15:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flight is now documented at Adam Air Flight 574. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 16:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know this plane has officially crashed? The news I can find reports the plane is missing at this hour. AWatiker 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At present, the aircraft is still missing. See the article for further information, and keep checking it, its likely that it will be updated within minutes if the plane is found. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Now that the airline is front page, can someone get the logo for this article? It is white-on-red, and from what I've seen looks like a flying male figure, like Icarus. Chris 05:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A foreign-language wikipedia has one at [1], but don't ask me what its copyright status is (although I think logos fall under fair use, is this correct?) Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 574 entry getting a little big

[edit]

Hey, am I the only one here who thinks the article's entry is a little bit long? Go look up any airline - even it one with a recent crash, such as Comair - and you will see that the entrys for incidents and accidents are generally only a sentence or two, leaving the real talking to the article itself. Do you think we should be shortening the entry here for flight 574? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe right, however you must remember that unlike other airline disasters which are located right away, I believe this disaster has captured the interest of people around the world because they can not find it. I think it is the fact of the unknown that is driving the evolving article. I can't say that I agree with it, because of my opinions about accuracy and accountabilty, but I think I understand it. The thing you really have to watch for now is for all the real wacko theories to come out of the woodwork. Mrebstad 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; we've already had extraterestrial activity over on the article talk page. Still, people in charge of these things have been known to make terrible mistakes regarding commercial aricraft, it's begining to look possible. I will try and trim down the entry here a little bit, though, sometime. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 09:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a bit big. Surely just saying they lost a plane, date of the accident and a link to the wiki page for it is suffcient? MM

Per the consensus reached here, I have removed most of the entry. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 12:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Can we please keep use of tabloid-journalism language away from articles like this? Saying things like "the ill-fated plane" serve only to reinforce the public misconception that aviation is dangerous. Sure, accidents happen, but when was the last time you read a news report saying "Mr Smith boarded the ill-fated car less than an hour before the head-on collision"... Lasiorhinus 03:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wrote most of the new material on Adam Air since the Jan 1 crash, i guess this is my responsibility, if only for not removing it. I did a quick double check, but I don't see it anywhere else in the thre articles (Adam Air, Adam Air Flight 574 and Adam Air Flight 172), and I promise to try and keep it out in future. Thanks, Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Proof" of navigational systems problems

[edit]

I removed this from the article, as it is not proof; it is from a blog or newsgroup.

This article on a professional pilot forum also proves the poor navigational systems implemented by the airline.

Flyguy649 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Flight 172 get it's own article?

[edit]

I'm wondering if this particular flight should be given it's own article - although no-one was seriously injured, it seems notable enough in that six Adam Air 737s are now grounded, and, especialy in Adam Air's present predicament, that can spell the end for an airline. Any thoughts? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against a new article until we have a sufficient body of material here to warrant it being split off, which isn't the case yet. (Caniago 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Someone else has created it anyway. See Adam Air Flight 172. I will do some work on it myself in the near future. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nomination

[edit]

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 07:15, Tuesday November 5 2024 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has failed one or more categories and is therefore denied GA status. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title; this should be taken as advice for improvement, rather than a list of reasons for failing.

  1. Well-written: Failed the prose is comprehensible, the grammar is correct, and the structure is clear at first reading - the article is very broken up, and the paragraphing is in general very short. This makes the article harder to read, and difficult to understand.
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Pass

My condolences to the lead editors - your hard work has been informally recognised; just keep it up, and do not be disheartened!

Please feel free to re-nominate the article after the improvements have been made, or alternatively seek a GA Review (or discuss with me on my talk page) if you believe my decision has been misguided.

Sincerest regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 16:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo adam air.png

[edit]

Image:Logo adam air.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam?

[edit]

Where does the name come from, and what does it mean? I'd presume it comes from an Indonesian word, and not the Western Bible-derived name Adam... LordAmeth (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is actualy derived from the name; although I have never seen it actualy said by a source, it must surely be named after founder Adam Suherman? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's fate

[edit]

Adam Air is now officially finished, their fate has been sealed since first half of 2008, why nobody mention that in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.213.142 (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adam Air. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 02:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Adam Air/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Reassessment January 2008== Article still meets B-class criteria, removed dead reference. It would be fantastic to see the assesment process taken forward on this one. Wexcan (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam Air. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam Air. 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) 10:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam Air. 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) 06:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Air&oldid=1204507120"