Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Germanwings Flight 9525/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 March 2023 [1].

Germanwings Flight 9525

[edit]
Nominator(s): Prhartcom (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the infamous crash of a commercial jet aircraft because of suicide by pilot.

I brought this article to GA years ago and ensured it has accurately improved over the years. I believe it is ready for FA. Tell me what you think. Prhartcom (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a455bcd9

[edit]

Do we have the datasource for File:Altitude Chart for Flight 4U9525 register D-AIPX.svg? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just asked User talk:Justass for this. I see that they are not active much anymore but I hope they reply. It appears to be derivative of the facts that are stated in the article, though. 13:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Prhartcom (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it from this? - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find, SchroCat; I have added this to the article. I also found this, which was already in the article. Hope this is okay, a455bcd9. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these two graphs are strictly identical to ours: is that still fine? If it is, the source we choose (one of these two) should be added on Commons. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Prhartcom and A455bcd9: Is this fixed now? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker. - SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • I'm not sure "unfit to work" needs quote marks – it's a common phrase
  • "As of February 2017": Just "By 2017" would suffice, I think
Done. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Flight
  • "takeoff" is two words, according to the OED
  • "the largest piece of wreckage was "the size of a car"": you need to assign this quote to someone. John Smith of the Official Body described the largest piece of wreckage as "the size of a car" or similar
That would be great, but it turned out the words were written by the anonymous author of the Air News article. I have removed the quotes for now, but we may need to excise this from the article. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be removed: you can go with "According to Air News..." as long as it's attributed to something. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft
  • Would it make more sense to put the Aircraft section above the Flight one? (Your call – I don't push the point)
I got exited by this idea and tried it, then was surprised to find it was better left the way it is. Try reading it as if it was moved and you will see what I mean. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Investigation
It was worse than that; the first link was a redirect from the bureau name in French. Fixed and removed second link. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cause of crash
  • "co-pilot" is a duplicate link
  • "Brice Robin": Just "Robin" – you've already introduced him in the section above
  • "six weeks later": Not sure we need that, as you've given the date
Done. But for your third point. I reversed the "six weeks later" and the date; I think its (hopefuly) better? Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Investigation of Lubitz
  • "Prosecutor Brice Robin": Just Robin
Done. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Political
  • "coordinate": as this is written in BrEng, it should be "co-ordinate"
But Wiktionary doesn't say that's BrEng. If you are certain, then we should change Wiktionary as well. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't trust Wiktionary as far as I could throw it! I go by the OED, which hyphenates. In BrEng the hyphen is used where two vowels may be pronounced incorrectly, so co-operate with two sounds isn't pronounced as coop. - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial
  • "half-mast" (picture caption) should be hyphenated
And that was a redirected link from half mast to half-mast as well. Fixed. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regulatory
  • "Lufthansa CEO Carsten Spohr": you've already fully introduced them above
Changed to "CEO Spohr"; hope it is it okay. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it a false title. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Compensation
  • "deliberately crashed the passenger aircraft": just "aircraft"
  • "As of February 2017": just "By February 2017"
  • "the training center in Arizona": as this isn't the formal name, the spelling should be "centre"
Done, except I am confused by the first point; what do you mean? Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - that was unclear: I meant that instead of "deliberately crashed the passenger aircraft" you should have "deliberately crashed the aircraft". - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
  • FNs 1 and 2 both need references
Checking into this. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps! It's all superficial little things, so I'm leaning heavily towards support. It's a good read – very tightly written with nothing overly-detailed or extraneous. – SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your encouraging review, SchroCat! Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prhartcom, have all of SchroCat's comments been addressed? If so, could you ping them? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

[edit]
  1. The lead length seems a bit too long compared to the body length. I would consider trimming the lead slightly.
  2. Why are there some citations but not consistently cited in the lead? I would go with citing only things that aren't cited in the body, this is the standard way to do it at FAC.

(t · c) buidhe 19:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; checking into this. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prhartcom, how is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

I saw this episode of Air Crash Investigation.

  • Some of the links look like Easter eggs, eg: crashed, deliberately caused, suicidal tendencies
  • The runway number strikes me as an unnecessary detail
  • was due to arrive at Düsseldorf Airport by 11:39 you mention it was behind schedule; is that the original scheduled arrival time or the revised ETA?
  • You only need to give the timezone once, except where there might be confusion.
  • Don't link commonly understood terms, eg scramble, suicide note, blind
  • I believe Gendarmerie nationale normally takes a definite article
  • The French Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety (BEA) opened an investigation You've already introduced the BEA above; just "The BEA opened" will suffice here.
  • According to French and German prosecutors, the crash was deliberately caused "According to" sounds like it's an opinion to be subject to scepticism but it's the determination of an official body and not widely disputed; suggest "prosecutors concluded..."
  • medical secrecy requirements "secrecy" carries connotations of conspiracy, at least to me; "confidentiality" is more common in British English
  • Then-Prime Minister Manuel Valls Drop the "then"; Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless and we know politicians don't hold office forever
  • CEO Spohr Just Spohr; you've introduced him above
  • Are the range of nationalities of the victims' nationalities really relevant?
  • The International Busines Times is flagged as unreliable; suggest you carefully consider your use of it
  • Are there no relevant books or journal articles that could be cited? A very quick glance at Google Books and Scholar throws up some sources that might be worthy of consideration but I haven't evaluated them for detail or reliability.

In all, very good work on an incident well worth documenting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]

Add col scopes and row scopes to the table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, article is succinct, seems comprehensive and generally okay prose-wise, allowing for some short paragraphs/subsections. I copyedited so let me know if you think I misunderstood anything -- other points:

  • I'm not sure what need there is to have citations in the lead, I'd expect anything currently cited there could/should be cited in the main body.
  • Bodo Klimpel, mayor of Haltern am See, reacting to the deaths of 16 students and 2 teachers from the town, said that people were shocked by the crash -- Reporting people were shocked by the crash is pretty limp considering what had happened, and you already have something earlier that's more telling re. the mayor and the town, i.e. Haltern's mayor, Bodo Klimpel, described the crash as "the darkest day in the history of [the] town". I would just remove the "shocked by the crash" quote (you could move the "darkest day" one to that position, but then you have the Lufthansa boss in the next subsection using similar words so I'd suggest not).

Spotcheck of sources (this version) for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing:

  • FN29 -- source mentions helicopters but nothing about Gendarmerie nationale and Sécurité Civile.
  • FN18b -- okay.
  • FN21 -- source appears to require subscription so should be marked as such; I would liked to have checked this as it's comparing the deadliness of the crash to incidents.
  • FN30 -- this site would not open for me.
  • FN18c -- source effectively confirms most passengers from Germany and Spain but can't see 18 nationalities mentioned.
  • FN16b -- source notes captain's flying hours in total and on type but doesn't seem to mention 10 years of experience.
  • FN75 -- okay.
  • FN26b -- okay for accuracy but became "curt" when the captain began the mid-flight briefing on the planned landing in the WP article is a direct copy from the source and needs paraphrasing.
  • FN156 -- okay.
  • FN110 -- okay for accuracy but not paraphrasing... WP article: Under German law, employers do not have access to employees' medical records, and sick notes excusing people from work do not give information about medical conditions. Source: Under German law, employers do not have access to employees' medical records, while sick notes excusing a person from work do not give information on medical conditions

Based on the above spotcheck, unless I have missed anything, I would have to oppose -- out of ten checks three are clean, two I couldn't tell and five are problematic in some form, so I think the nominator needs to go over all the refs before a second spotcheck is performed to see how things have improved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • This is a month in and has no supports and an oppose on the spot check. So I am archiving it for the issues above to be addressed off-FAC. Hopefully we will see the article back here before too long, although the usual two-week hiatus will apply.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Germanwings_Flight_9525/archive1&oldid=1143960707"