Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer to review, Zwerg Nase. This was a group effort by many editors including myself who were all devoted to accuracy and the Wikipedia policies. I will be happy to facilitate your review. Prhartcom (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A very good article about one of the many horrible news items this year. Just a few things to take care of.

Zwerg Nase; Good eyes. I'm excited about resolving these; thank-you for spotting them. As well, I will ensure that similar errors are not also being made. Prhartcom (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: I don't really think that there is a need to point out (all) when there is also the information that there were 0 survivors.

When you pointed this out, I rushed to check other Wikipedia articles of pilot-induced crashes (the specific incidents are listed in the "See also" section). I saw that other articles format it the way this article does. EgyptAir Flight 990, LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, and SilkAir Flight 185 all format something similar to:

Fatalities	100 (all)
Survivors	0

Even Federal Express Flight 705 did:

Injuries (non-fatal)	4 (all)
Fatalities	0 (all)
Survivors	4

And there are other articles in the See also. However, one article, Royal Air Maroc Flight 630, did it this way:

Fatalities	44
Survivors	0

You and I should now answer the following question: is Royal Air (the one immediately above) doing it right and are the other six or so including this article doing it wrong? Or is the Royal Air one doing it wrong and are the others and this article doing it right? Note: I am not above fixing any of the other articles for consistency, a concept that is important to me. I thought about it and I vote for the latter: I believe it is important that the infobox reflect the sources: give the number of fatalities and state that this is all of the lives on board, in the way the other articles do. The zero in the survivors row is not applicable to the matter. I'll add "(all)" after the "44" to the Royal Air article. I am interested in your thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation: Why is the French bureau name in French but the German one in English?

(talk page stalker) I think this is because the article title of the French bureau is in French but the article title of the German bureau is in English. sst ✈ 13:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A plausible answer, but I still believe it should be consistent in the article here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg Nase, you are correct; it should be consistent. This has been corrected; the bureau name is now stated in English. Prhartcom (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of Lubitz: but unfortunately "medical secrecy requirements" prevented this information from being made available to his employer Germanwings. - two things here: 1) the term unfortunately should either be removed (because not neutral) or quoted which leads me to 2) the quotation given is not in the provided source.

You are right about the unfortunate use of the word "unfortunately"; this has been removed. Prhartcom (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I researched this edit and discovered I had inadvertently replaced the original source of the "medical secrecy" quote; this has been restored. Prhartcom (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Rappler qualifies as a reliable source.

This bad source has been removed and multiple reliable sources remain to cite this portion of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Good work so far! Seven days on hold. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

As of my timestamp I'm working on a requested Guild of Copy Editors copy-edit to this article. If I haven't finished there by mid-day 11th October UTC, please consider the c/e Partly done. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested GOCE copy-edit

Done. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Baffle gab1978, it was an honor! Prhartcom (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg Nase, I have completed replying to these suggestions. As stated above, we are fortunate indeed that a member of the Guild of Copy Editors has made significant progress copy editing this article and should finish soon. Thanks again for your review! Let me know what you think of my responses. Prhartcom (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase:, are you available to continue the review? I have addressed each point you raised. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom: I just arrived back from Korea last night, so I was unable to react over the last couple of days, so please excuse the delay. I have checked on other GAs about plane crashed and there does not seem to be any consistency on the matter of including the (all)... I would prefer it to be removed but I will not push on this point since it is no reason to fail the article. I am glad to pass it now! :) Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review, Zwerg Nase! The work of many editors went into this article; I believe it is looking good now; all should be proud. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]