Talk:Adam Air Flight 172/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2007, so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant.Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

After an Initial read through, this article appears to at or about GA-level. I'll therefore look at it in more detail, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Incident -

• Ref 4 is broken.
• Ref 5 is broken.
• Ref 6 is a blog site and therefore on-compliant with WP:Verify.
• Ref 8 is broken.

• Grounding of Adam Air's 737s -

• Ref 5 is broken (see above).
• Ref 13 is broken.

• Investigation -

.....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• This section appears to be complaint in respect of WP:verify; however, the article states that the accident is under investigation. Is this still the case, or has it been completed; in which the article would need some updating?

• Maintenance concerns -

• There appears to be a problem with Ref 16.

• Aftermath -

.....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• All the citations appear to be verifiable; however ref 17 states that in 2007 the accident was still under investigation - an update is needed.
• From Adam Air, it appears that the company is no longer in business.

• WP:Lead -

• This appears to be a reasonable introduction / summary of the accident upto 2007, but could do with an update.

Pyrotec (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with most of this. I will need to check that blog source; it depends who's blog and what it's being used to back up, although even if after checking it out I disagree it needs to go I'll get rid of it if I can anyway. As for the investigation, it is not impossible that it remains under investigation after 2 years. It featured extensively in an edition of the regular update from the investigators, but as major investigations result in an English language report I rather doubt that was more than an update - need a bahasa speaker to confirm. If not, then earlier this year it was certainly still being probed. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I take your point. It does not appear to be blog site for airline pilots to post anonymous near-miss reports - I "know" about them and would not require one of them to be removed. Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to replace the dead links. I have replaced all of them except for 2 Jakarta Post links in current ref. 4 and 7. I used an archive.org copy for an article on stuff.co.nz (current ref. 5). That probably can be replaced by a similar article. Oh and the dead link apparent blog mentioned above (ref. 6) is short and seems to be covered by other references in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A minor thing which got missed, I fixed the display of the ship names in the Aftermath section. Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The 2 Jakarta Post dead links are "Adam Air paints its ill-fated plane" and "Adam Air passengers ask for money back". I have not been able to find replacements that support the content in the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your efforts in helping to bring this article back to GA-standards. Pyrotec (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Generally compliant, but there main two broken web links.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   generally compliant.

I'm marking this review as:- GA-status "keep". Pyrotec (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)