Wikipedia:Peer review/Adam Air Flight 574/archive1

Adam Air Flight 574

I want to see this article get FA status. Anything, no matter how trivial, would be apreciated. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carcharoth

What is the latest with linking in the bold bit? Is it now OK, or should the linked phrase (in this case Adam Air) be repeated nearby in the surrounding text?
Piping airline behind "passenger flight" is probably acceptable, but you need to make clear in the lead (not just the infobox) what sort of aircraft is involved. Helicopter, airplane? And what sort? In this case, the Boeing 737-400 detail could be either in the lead or left to the first section, I don't have a strong opinion on that.
"remain missing" (and similar phrases) need a date qualifier, so people know when the article was last updated.
Tenses: "has described the disappearance" - change to " described the disappearance" - plus similar tenses need clearing up. Should all be completely past tense now.
The lead needs expanding. More dates and times could be added for a start. It also needs to bring in stuff from the reaction and aftermath sections.
"had flown with eight airlines, including Adam Air" - can you expand this to mention these other eight airlines, if that sort of information is available?
"the plane went on schedule" - better phrased as "the plane continued on schedule".
You need something about how modern aircraft can deal (or not) with the weather conditions encountered. Are 130 km/h a cause for concern? This implied, but not made explicit in the article.
The chronology and geography is confusing (as it was for the investigators, I'm sure). You give the last known time of contact, and then seem to go back and describe earlier incidents. Make clear precisely which events come before others. For example, is there a time for that satellite beacon reading, and where exactly are those co-ordinates you give - are they over the Makassar Strait? Google Maps put me on the coast of the island of Sulawesi. Also, show the location of the Makassar Strait on both maps - is it to the west of Sulawesi? Is this further evidence of a turn-around? Some of this is clarified later, but in the early parts of the article it is confusing.
Did the satellite co-ords prompt the search on Sulawesi? Mentioned later in the article, but not at the first menition of the 'false discovery' - did the satellite beacon data come after or before searches had started on Sulawesi?
"located the black boxes" links to a later section of the article. I find this annoying as a reader. Let readers arrive at that section naturally, rather than allowing them to jump ahead like this. Ditto for the link hidden behind "the black boxes were since located elsewhere".
The "continued efforts" and "location of the wreckage" sections overlap chronologically. This is confusing. Try and separate the two and keep things chronological throughout the article.
"It discovered a large amount of wreckage in the area, which is now considered to be all that remains of the aircraft." - this contradicts the lead section, which says "the main wreckage, and the 102 people on board, remain missing".
"A senior Indonesian marine official said he doesn't believe the equipment which is necessary to retrieve the boxes from that depth is available in any Asian country" - need a date for when he said this.
The bit about battery life expiring for the black boxes is presumably just for the beacon locator. I assume the data stored in the black boxes will last a lot longer (indefinitely?), as is implied by the continued desultory efforts to recover them? If so, make all this clearer.
The salvage section in particular, and the article in general, needs more dates. When someone says something, say when they said it. eg. "Adam Air have stated that they do intend to select a company to conduct the operation shortly and will pay for this themselves" - when did they say this (you can't expect people to go down to the footnote and check the reference date). Make clear at what date the information stops. This will help if people later come along and update the article with new information.
"A team from the United States with representatives from the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing and General Electric are currently in Indonesia and will assist the Indonesian National Committee for Transportation in the investigation." - currently? When was this? What is the latest?
The introduction to the section "Maintenance concerns" is too short: "Investigators quickly became concerned about apparent poor maintenance and believe it may play an important factor in the accident." Use this introduction to summarise what is said here.
"deliberate breaches of international safety regulations" and "swapping parts between aircraft to avoid mandatory replacement deadlines" - give more details. What international safety regulations? Explain what a mandatory replacement deadline is and how swapping parts can avoid it.
"This may be of particular significance as it is known the aircraft and Air Traffic Control reported crosswinds hitting the plane from different directions, exposing a possible navigation error." - this sentence needs referencing to a source, otherwise it is Wikipedia editors drawing their own conclusions, which is original research.
The suggestion by relatives of the passengers that a malfuntioning rudder valve caused the crash needs foolproof referencing. Then explain it using material from those other arrticles you refer to, but don't go too far. Wait for the official report. At leats link to an article on rudder valves if we have one (or write one).
The "Aftermath" section is good. Overall though, it would be best to wait until the investigation reports comes out, and until the possible shut-down of Adam Air is resolved, before going for Featured Status, as then the article would be more stable.

Hope this helps! Carcharoth 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]