Wikipedia:Peer review/2020 Coulson Aviation Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review to get some comments and feedback for the purpose of a Featured article review. Thanks, GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
[edit]@GMH Melbourne: I recently reviewed this for GAN, so I wanted to give my thoughts here while they were fresh in my mind:
- A lot more sources are needed for this article since it relies too much on the initial report. I suggest looking through WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, archive.org, DOAJ.org, or your local library system for additional sources.
- The article will need a prose clean-up, probably after all the extra prose is included. Right now the prose is good, but some things can be done to make it even better. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing helped me with learning how to write more effectively in Wikipedia articles.
- The cause and findings section will probably need to be trimmed and written as paragraphs instead of bullet points.
I suggest looking at Paradise Airlines Flight 901A, a recently promoted featured article about an aviation disaster, for ideas on how your article should be formatted and sourced. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720: It is more than likely that there won't be many other sources on available on the topic, do you think that will be a deal-breaker? GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith
[edit]I agree with Z1720 about the sources, but I'll go a bit further than he did (and my apologies in advance in this reads harshly). This is overwhelmingly sourced to a single source (the ATSB report), and it's a WP:PRIMARY source at that. Of the remaining sources, Johnson and Wong 404's, three others are human-interest biographies of the crew that died which say nothing about the crash which isn't just cherry-picking facts from the ATSB report. The BBC article is a routine news report from the day of the crash. There's zero secondary sources that go into any significant detail about the crash, leading me to wonder if this even meets WP:GNG based on the sources presented.
Aviation fire fighting is a dangerous business and sadly, crashes happen. The aircraft involved was an aging transport plane that had been retrofitted for fire fighting, which is true of most planes used in this type of service. They were flying low-level runs in crappy conditions; again typical of this type of operation. The probable cause (an unrecoverable low-altitude stall due to wind shear) is also, sadly, not unusual. What makes this crash special? But, more importantly, other that the ATSB report and a handful of news articles which just rehash what the ATSB said, what significant coverage of this has there been? RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate your frankness. A google search show the abundance of sources on the topic. When writing the article I essentially used the ATSB report as the main source as it was all the info in the one place and was very comprehensive. After a delving deeper into the sources available I am confident I'll be to integrate better quality sources into the article, and diversify the sources presented in the article. The sources range from reporting the initial incident, victim profiles, reporting the ATSB report, and a law suit from the victims' family to the NSW RFS. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I encourage you to look for not just more sources, but sources which add something new. Were there any other independent investigations of the crash? The accident aircraft was manufactured by a US company and had a US registry and US crew, so I would assume the NTSB would be involved in some way. See if you can find anything from them. Likewise, the plane was owned by a Canadian company, so was the TSBC involved in any way? Was there any independent coverage in the aviation industry press? Are there any analyses by independent aviation experts which explain what wind shear is and why it's hazardous?
- More news reports immediately after the accident aren't going to add much. More victim profiles aren't going to add much. More rehashes of the same ATSB report aren't going to add much. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Query from Z1720
[edit]@GMH Melbourne: It has been over a month since the last comment. Are you still looking for feedback or can this be closed and nominated for FAC? Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- It can be closed. thank you! GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- @GMH Melbourne: Closing instructions are at WP:PRG. Z1720 (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)