Talk:Havørn Accident/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold. Comments below.

Comments

The article is mostly sourced to a single book, Ingemar Norstrand's Havørn-ulukka som skaka fly-Noreg i 1936. There is a single reference to another source. It needs other sources. Was there an official accident report released? What about newspapers? (Google's news archive is a good starting point for research.)
- And maybe, if possible, an English reference or two?
The table of contents should not be "forced" (eg. using the ___TOC___)
The lead does not adequately summarize the article. The main claim of notability, that this was the first fatal aviation accident in Norwegian history, isn't even mentioned there.
Are there any suitable pictures for the infobox? The plane before the accident? (Sometimes an image search by tail number or registration turns something up.) The accident site?
Certain claims need citations directly. For example:
- "He was considered one of the country's most renowned pilots and was active with competition flights."
- "The airline offered compensation to the locals, but this was rejected in a letter on 27 June, stating that they were just happy to help."
- "several locals became ad hoc correspondents"
Some sentences need clarification. For example (but not limited to):
- the one in the previous bullet about a letter -- a letter from who? Who wrote it?
- "In a letter to the editor in Aftenposten on 18 June, it was suggested that reaching the ledge would be a suitable challenge for the mountaineering association Norsk Tindeklub." -- it was suggested by who? Also needs a citation.
Some sentences are written in a very informal, unencyclopedic style. Examples:
- "Magnus Kolgrov got hold of Robert and Bernt Porten,...." would be better written as "Magnus Kolgrov, along with Robert and Bernt Porten,...."
- "there were loose parts everywhere" would be better as "wreckage was scattered across the base of the mountain" or similar.
- "Lihesten, a mountain which sticks up from Lifjorden"
- "Bert Porten was used as a shuttle" should be "Bert Porten shuttled [supplies]"; a shuttle is a mechanical contrivance and this doesn't make sense to a native English speaker.
Salvage should be split into two sections: Salvage and Investigation. Alternatively, have the section "Aftermath" with subsections "Salvage" and "Investigation."
The article should mention any long-term consequences of the crash. Is there a memorial there now? Were there any lawsuits? Did it affect commercial aviation in Norway in any way? Were there any laws or regulations passed as a result?

"The sister aircraft Najaden arrived later in the afternoon with relatives of the deceased and journalists; its main objective was to search for survivors, but there was no possibility for it to land." So what happened? Did the airplane divert to a nearby airfield? Did it return to where it came from? Did the relatives and journalists arrive in some other fashion? Is there a reason that this is even mentioned here -- does it have overall significance?
"After Balchen had investigated the accident site from the plane...." Do you mean, he conducted an investigation from the air? This is a confusing sentence.

I am placing this article on hold for a period of no more than 1 week for the above concerns to be addressed.

Please leave comments here. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm on vacation now, so I've don't have much time to do much on Wikipedia until the weekend. Hope it's fine that I wait with looking into this until then. Thanks for the review, anyway. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK that is fine. I'll extend the hold to one week from 15 July 2011.--Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 03:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

There are no online archives of Norwegian newspapers available from prior to 1945, although I've added three more sources for the aftermath section. There was no official accident report. I have not found any English sources covering the accident (for instance, ASN does not go back that far and only has an unreliable wiki entry).
Everything in the article is referenced with in-line citations. If the same reference covers multiple sentences, it it located at the end of the last sentence which it sources, and sometimes mid-sentence. This is in accordance the guidelines for referencing.
The source does not say who wrote the letter-to-the-editor; it is references from ref 12 (page 89).
I was originally planning to have an investigation section, but there was no investigation in the way we think about it today. Yes, there was a committee, but it didn't really conclude with anything (beyond that the wreck was not reachable).
I've added some information on the aftermath; I didn't originally think of them as particularly important, but they don't do any harm and they are rather encyclopedic, I guess. It seems that the accident had no judicial impact, beyond perhaps public and industry awareness.
The source does not identify the authors of the letters, although it did state that the latter was a colloquial letter.

Thank you for taking the time to make a thorough review; I'll apply the advice the next time I write an accident article as well. Sorry for the late reply, but my Internet access and the necessary time to sit down and dig up some additional details has been limited. Unless stated above, I've corrected the article according to your comments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply

Google's news archive is not a good starting point for research, but I have for other purposes bought access to Aftenposten's newspaper archive from ye olde times. And I added a dozen-odd references from there. Mostly about the aftermath, but also some about the letter.
By the way, I find it to be true when Arsenikk says that "If the same reference covers multiple sentences, it it located at the end of the last sentence which it sources".

Geschichte (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status?

Any status updates on this? It's been on hold 47 days. —Darkwind (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have addressed all of the reviewers concerns. He has not responded to a note on his talk page. If you or someone else feels like taking over the review, I would not mind. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything else of concern after reading through the article, so I'll pass it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]