Talk:BOAC Flight 712/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 11:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status:

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
File:G-ARWE-1.jpg does not have a complete fair use rationale. Needs to be scaled down also.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Good Luck improving! Remember You can renominate when you are done fixing.

To Work On list (specifics)

Augmented in Sec 1, please define (Criterion 1A)

Done Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Cross Database, Dead link, replace or remove (Citerion 2B)

Done Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Aeromoe" Geosites source, fails reliability & unable to understand, remove/resource (Citerion 2A&B)

Done Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Large Unsourced sections (1-5). Step by step explanation that does have sources. (Criterion 2C)

Not sure. All text is referenced. Where a para has only 1 ref, all text is from that source. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: The sections are covered all by one source. Would like to see some kind of second source to verify the information. I assume that when you footnote the whole paragraph that you are citing the whole paragraph? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sections are all covered by one source because that source (Aeroplane) was the source I used to expand the article. At the time I did not have Ottaway's book. Your assumption is correct. AFAIK, 1 ref per para is acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Now understand. Clarified. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not cover actions from air traffic control. (Criterion 3A)

Not sure - ATC coverage is sparse in sources. I'll re-read Susan Ottaway's book and see if I can expand coverage here. Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is a small section of ATC, it would be better than nothing. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done More added about ATC's role. I don't think it could be a separate section as it is too interwoven into the flight of the aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1st image does not fully explain the status of the aircraft. You could put "Engine falling from Flight 712 over ___". (Criterion 6B & 1A MOS 17.2 "Formatting of captions")

Done Caption expanded Mjroots (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Wikilinks (Criterion 1B)

Done All ~~wikilinks~~ external links now live Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did mean external links, didn't you? A dead wikilink is a redlink, isn't it? Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Sorry meant redlink. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've removed two of the redlinks. I don't think that either really adds to the article per WP:REDLINK, although I have no objection to them being linked if an article were to be created. Katriel Katz meets WP:BIO, and the redlink there is a valid one. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please do not change the status of the criterion, the reviewer will change that their selfs.

The reason I declined it instead of putting it on hold was because that is a big list, and I usually find that that big of a lists takes editors a while to take care of. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks all good now. I don't re-review like this because I often miss something and it goes for reassessment or needs fixing. Sorry. ---- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

The GAN has a fail against "No original research". In which area do you think that there is OR in the article? Mjroots (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done It was the above stuff. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file mentioned above as not having a complete NFU rationale and needing resizing. I don't see where either of these apply. The photo appears in Ottaway's book, but isn't attributed. Its size at 200x409 px is small enough. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Working~~ -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about the resize. But the Fair Use Rational needs to be detailed per GA Criteria. See WP:RAT. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the FURs of all three fair use images. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]