Talk:Whyalla Airlines Flight 904

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whyalla Airlines Flight 904 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Australia: South Australia / Crime / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Whyalla Airlines Flight 904 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Aviation: Accidents

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 has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Article focus and Notability

In my opinion it is not so much the accident itself, but the accident investigation that is notable. Not much has been written about the accident after the flurry of news reports, but plenty has been written about the investigation. Do the words written about the investigation confer notability on the accident? I realise that one can't be discussed without mentioning the other, but perhaps a rename is in order. YSSYguy (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support renaming the article, however I feel that the accident itself is notable in accordance with WP:AIRCRASH due to the safety implications and the amount of media coverage received at the time. I feel the current name fits with conventions for such an incident, but I understand the point you make. Perhaps the investigation would be better discussed as part of a (not yet existing) article about aircraft accident investigation in Australia? There have been a fair few incidents where the regulator/investigator's actions have been quite controversial - The Seaview Air Crash (1994?) and 2009 Pel-Air Westwind ditching immediately come to mind. Dfadden (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]