Jump to content

Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2015 Shoreham Airshow crash has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 8, 2023Good article nomineeListed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 22, 2015.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 22, 2017, August 22, 2020, and August 22, 2022.

Pilot negligence?

[edit]

Would this be classed as pilot negligence? From what I’m seeing on the news it sure does sound like it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9vyzS5rp7M4

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a criminal trial underway to determine the answer to exactly that question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The defence case seems to rest on the claim that Hill was incapacitated, or at least impaired, by the g-forces of the manoeuvre. A brief news clip, like that ITV snippet, can't properly examine the exact timeline of those g-forces (which may or may not have been accurately recorded for later scrutiny) nor with the issue of whether the incapacitation was recklessly, or unintentionally, self-inflicted. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help! Ill note in the summary that the pilot was incapacitated. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you have a source for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well after getting round to this accident as I was doing ofhers earlier. The prosecution is still occurring as the pilot has appealed the courts judgment, so until then we’ll see what happens. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The trial is ongoing. The court has not yet made "a judgement". So he can't yet make any "appeal". Hill is giving evidence in his own defence. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know don’t worry I’m watching the news and reading the papers. I am keeping close watch on this accident in particular. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong location referenced for airport and crash site.

[edit]

There is No mention of Lancing even though the airport and the crash were both in lancing not Shoreham. Tried editing but removed. 86.16.123.86 (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lancing is listed as the location of the airport in other wiki pages but not mentioned here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_City_Airport PrinceAndrewoops (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Trains2050 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): I am very happy with spelling and grammar. Prose is quite clear and does not use a lot of technical language and understandable to a broad audience. However can you please rephrase this line: Hill, the pilot, was thrown clear of the aircraft in his ejection seat, which was live when the aircraft departed from North Weald.
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    I run the article through checks. Both automatic and manual, chance of plagiarism is very low.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    On hold. Great article, please can you just change the line that I stated above. Trains2050 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trains2050: Reworded, and clarified that the live seat posed an additional danger to rescuers. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mjroots: Thanks so much for making these changes! After reviewing the criteria, I am confident that no further changes are needed so I am passing this article. Thanks again for your cooperation during theis review. Have a great day! Trains2050 (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trains2050: and thank you for the review! Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Mjroots (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2015 Shoreham Airshow crash; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

    • The article, which was started on the date of the crash, was nominated on 8 March 2023, the date it was approved as a Good Article.
    • I have reviewed the Good Article review, and all seems to be in order.
    • Both hooks are accurate and are supported by various reliable sources.
    • Good-quality sources are used throughout. The quality of the prose is also good.
    • Unfortunately, the article was featured in the prose section of the "On this day" section of the Main Page on 22 August 2022 (link), which makes it ineligible for DYK on the face of it (based on DYK criterion 1c). A shame, as this is clearly a high-quality and important article which would benefit from appearing again on the Main Page, especially since significant further developments have happened since August 2022 in relation to the inquest. I wonder if we could invoke WP:IAR in view of this...?

Let's get some more thoughts on this from experienced DYK personnel. I would be happy to support the article appearing on DYK despite its appearance at "On This Day" within the last year, in view of the updates which have happened since then. In its present state the article and both hooks are suitable for DYK except for this issue. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Nah, just withdraw. When I nominated this I didn't realize it had been on OTD last year. I think I saw that it appeared in 2020 and thought that it was okay without realizing that it appeared last year. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Shoreham_Airshow_crash&oldid=1221092773"