Talk:British European Airways Flight 548/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: N419BH (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 18:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated a couple of these myself, probably time for me to review one. Please be patient as this is my first time reviewing a Good Article Nominee and I will probably be a bit slow with it. N419 BH 18:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Specifics

The second paragraph of the "Industrial Relations Background" section is difficult to follow and I am having a hard time understanding the underlying dispute. As I understand it P1/Captain, P2/First Officer/Copilot, P3/Second Officer/Flight engineer but what exactly is the dispute? Also, there are a lack of copilots, so these supervisory copilots are being removed from the copilot seat and moved to flight engineer? That seems backwards. Also I'd like to see a source for the second sentence which claims the older pilots were opposed and the younger pilots were in favor.

It is somewhat confusing for the "Orly incident" and the "Naples incident" to have separate headings when the introductory sentence for both refers to the last sentence of the "Felthorpe accident" section. Either rewrite to remove the reference to the other section or remove the section headings and call all three paragraphs "Previous Incidents".

The picture of the passenger cabin doesn't seem to flow in with the text at its present location, and I'm not sure if it actually adds much to the understanding of the article. Consider moving/removing it.

The background sections seem too long compared to the rest of the article. After all the setup I'm left at the end of the article wondering, "wait, what was all the setup for?" This can be remedied by either eliminating some of the background or expanding the inquiry section to include findings related to the background.

The article seems biased to the controversies that occurred and doesn't actually discuss the accident itself much.

Not required for article passage, but a picture of the memorial would be exceedingly helpful.

Some information on BEA pay dispute being 'resolved' the day after the accident, in Flight news item here (top right): [1] - Keys had previously drafted a speech 'deploring' the industrial action which was read out at the meeting.

A Flight opening article on the pay dispute here: [2]

An article on the inquiry briefing here; [3] and the subsequent inquiry into the accident here: [4] and another here: [5] and another here: [6] ... and a pilot's response to the inquiry; [7]

...and the subsequent inquiry findings here: [8]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Overall I'm left with an impression that this has all the items needed for a good article, but seems lackluster in its discussion of the actual accident and the inquiry, focusing in its present state too much on the background controversies and underlying labor disputes and even in the investigation section focusing on the controversies and not the actual inquest. As such I feel it's focused on the wrong area, an article on an accident should focus on the accident. The best way to remedy this is probably to expand the sections on the accident and the inquiry, rather than shrink the background as its clear the background is important. I'll wait for input before putting the article on the customary 7 day hold. N419 BH 09:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Placing on hold for 7 days. N419 BH 03:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns have not been addressed, so I must fail this nomination. I hope these concerns are reviewed and the article is renominated at a later date. N419 BH 02:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]