Talk:Mount Erebus disaster/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Section "Recovery efforts" contains a lengthy quote, plus a bad reference for the quote; see WP:NPS.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   See comments below.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Significantly lacking in sources in some areas. Some sections have only a single source for several paragraphs of material. See comments below for specifics.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   See comments

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I cannot, in good faith, expect this article to fix the above problems in the week provided by placing the article on hold. Should the above problems be addressed, however, Flight 901 could very easily become a GA, if not better.

Specific comments

References

• The lead should not contain any references, since the purpose of the lead is to summarize important points, not introduce new material.
  • This is not completely true, according to WP:LEDE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why "Unless otherwise stated, all times are New Zealand Standard Time (UTC+12)" requires a citation.
• The references section contains a series of references at the bottom that are not used inline. (NZAVA Operation Deep Freeze - The New Zealand Story, 2002., Operation Overdue–NZAVA Archives 2002., &tc.) The section reads like someone's notes as to possible sources for expansion of article coverage.
• The following sections rely on a single source: Changes to the coordinates and departure; Accident inquiries (top); &tc.
• There are entire paragraphs with not a single citation. Examples: in section "Circumstances", see paragraph 3 ("Eventually, the Captain...") and paragraph 5 ("The flight had...").
• Section "Appeals" is unsourced and contains a quotation. Sections "Official accident report", "Mahon inquiry" are unsourced.
• Reference 16 ("NZPO1 NZAVA–see Bibliography.") directs one to see the Bibliography, but there is no Bibliography, nor is this reference listed in "External links" or "Footnotes".

Quotations

• Section "Recovery effort" contains very long quotation that might very well be the whole of the primary source. This information should be incorporated into the rest of the text. See policies/essays: WP:NPS, WP:Quotations
• The quotation in section "Appeals" should have a reference to the source.

Images

• File:Tail_of_Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901.jpg -- the fair use rationale on this image is questionable, especially the bit about replaceability.
• File:Flight901Sitrep4.jpg -- lacks a fair use rationale for use in this article.
• Note: The images may very well be ok, but the other issues of the article so outweigh its importance that it fails GA anyway.