Wikipedia:Peer review/BOAC Flight 777/archive1

BOAC Flight 777

This article was listed as a DYK article several weeks ago. I was wondering what people thought of its potential as a FA article. Please post comments on what changes/improvements can be made.--David Straub 12:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, some of the sections are too short. It would probably make sense to combine some of the sections into one larger section. For instance The attack could probably do without any further subheadings. 'Further readings' should also be bulleted. But its a good start.--NMajdan•talk 21:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosgood's comments

I feel that the subsection Possible spies on the plane presently suffers from speculative language, per Wikipedia:Words to Avoid - 2.2 So-called, supposed, alleged, purported. The cited references [4], [7], [12] are not definitive in what these gentlemen were up to, and instead report on the mystery of what they might have been up to. As presently worded, it seems to me that this section is participating in the parlor game of speculation as well. Sixty some years after the fact, I don't think anyone can establish what Messers Howard and Israel were up to. If Wikipedia is to confine itself to verifiable fact, then it can state, in certain terms, that "It has never been established what role Leslie Howard played in the time leading up to flight 777, however a number of theories have been advanced...", and then present an inventory of citation-supported theories. This withdraws the article from the game of participating in speculation and places it on firmer ground, that of itemizing the various theories that historical researchers have advanced, which in itself is a set of verifiable facts. Thank you for investing time on this interesting period of history. Gosgood 12:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]