Talk:2010 Fox Glacier FU-24 crash

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2010 Fox Glacier FU-24 crash 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

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 13 August 2021, see discussion.
keep, 5 September 2010 (UTC), see discussion.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles

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.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Mid‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Accident type

Since the investigation has been concluded, a proper accident type needs to be assigned to the article. None of the example accident types seem to be appropriate to me however, since the report seems to blame not so much the pilots, but rather the operator and the CAA's oversight. I'd thus like to ask for the help of an experienced wikipedian in the field. 2.28.219.128 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The accident types listed at Template:Infobox_Aircraft occurrence#Example accident/Fincident types look to me to be just examples and not the only entries permitted. I've set the infobox to read "Incorrect loading and improper maintenance" but feel free to change that if you think something else would be better.-gadfium 20:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Botched invesigation

RecycledPixels - I appreciate you want that info in the article, but you must provide references that back the claims up. Mjroots (talk)

Mjroots. Agreed. I haven't had the time to come back and rewrite that section yet. I may have time this morning though. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots - I have rewritten that section now, take a look and see what you think. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]