Wikipedia:Peer review/Korean Air Lines Flight 007/archive1

Korean Air Lines Flight 007

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this somewhat controversial article for peer review because it has undergone a major overhaul since it was last submitted for GA by Bert Schlossberg a month ago. In particular, before submitting for GA again, I'd like a second opinion on any potential remaining neutrality or weighting issues, given that Bert, who took the initiative to start developing this article, has an association with the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors. Thanks, Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... It's a long article, so it will take a while. I will report in instalments. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You're a star, thank you. Let me know if I can reciprocate in any way with another article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the lead and first couple of sections. I have done a few punctuation and other minor fixes.

• Lead
  • I have several issues with this sentence: Soviet officials believed it was a deliberate provocation by the United States, to test the country's military response capabilities or to provoke a war.
    • Soviet officials? Surely, something a bit higher-powered than "officials"? Do you mean the Soviet government?
    • "...the country's military response..." You need to clarify the country, e.g. "...the USSR's military response"
    • The options in the second part of the sentence - either "testing military preparedness" or "provoking a war" seem a bit disconnected. The insertion of "even" ("or even to provoke a war") would work.
      • All sorted
  • I'm a bit concerned about the non-neutral tone of a couple of statements in the lead: "The Soviet Union obstructed..." and later "...suppressed vital evidence". These wordings seem too assertive for an encyclopedia article. Would it be possible to reword these statements more in the form of allegations or beliefs, e.g. "The United States accused the Soviet Union of obstructing search and rescue operations, and of suppressing vital evidence..."
    • Changed the wording about obstruction, however the suppression of black boxes is a well-published fact (they were released by the Yeltsin government 10 years later)
  • "...one of the most tense moments..." reads and sounds awkward. "Tensest" would be better.
    • Hmmm - disagree on this point
  • Same sentence: "...resulted in an escalation of anti-Soviet sentiment" – I'm not sure that sentiments can be "escalated", and "resulted in" is ponderous. Also, "particularly in the US" can be eliminated by "...and caused a significant increase in US anti-Soviet sentiment."
    • Sorted
  • Should it be "...several groups continue to dispute"?
    • Sorted
  • The last sentence is a bit cryptic for the general reader. Could it be expanded a little?
    • Sorted
• History of the flight
  • There is confusion in the times given in the first paragraph – EST, GMT and "local time". Also EST and the local time appear in 12-hour clock, whereas GMT is 24-hour clock. Consistency is necessary, and it should be possible to follow the time sequence.
    • Sorted
  • "The aircrew included..." Suggest "The aircrew consisted of..."
    • Sorted
  • "fourteen" and "twelve" should be 14 and 12
    • Sorted
  • "...six of which were..." Six men, or six aircrew? This confusion can be resolved by reconstructing the sentence: "The aircrew consisted of 14 women and 12 men, and included six...."
    • Sorted
  • Reorder: "US congressman Lawrence McDonald from Georgia..."
    • Sorted
  • I'm not sure of the relevance of the information about the number of transfer passengers, or the comment about lower fares.
    • Deleted
  • Last sentence of the section needs splitting, and some rephrasing. Suggest full stop after "KAL007" Then: "They were flying to Korea to attend the 30th anniversary ceremonies of the US-Korea Mutual Defence Treaty".
    • Sorted

• Deviation from assigned route
  • Why introduce bullet-points? These are not lists, with only two items. I suggest you convert to prose.
    • Sorted
  • First sentence needs splitting and rephrasing. Suggest stop after (J501), then: This would take it to Bethel, to the start of the northernmost of the five 50-mile wide passenger plane airways that bridge the Alaskan and Japanese coasts".
    • Sorted
  • The "also" in "Also HEADING mode is typically used" should be deleted.
    • Sorted
  • "The aircraft had to navigate in the dark..." Surely this is not something unusual?
    • They could not check any geographic features to confirm they were on track. Re-worded
  • "waypoints around the Siberian coast..." "Siberian coast" seems a bit vague; does this mean the Kamchatka coast?
    • Some texts use Siberian coast, so I used it for variety. Changed.
  • What is an "inertial navigation system"?
    • INS mode = intertial naviation. Added a second link and clarified that INS = intertial navigation
  • Perhaps I am being naive, but it seems to me that the plane's deviation was known quite early in the flight, so why wasn't it possible to contact the plane and inform the pilot?
    • Controversial point: Post analysis of radar data showed the deviation, but the military had no responsibility to monitor civilian aircraft, no procedures to communicate with civil authorities and the info was not available in real-time (already mentioned)

There was a way of communicating to civil authorities and through them to the crew of KAL 007. This would have been through the crew of the RC-135 using the Critic Report. Personal communication to me from a crew member of the RC-135 and a airman who was with the crew members on the return Flight from the Shemya Island base to Alaska fill in [1] and [2]. Findings are inconclusive and unpublishedBert Schlossberg (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Something I need to look at again - the section looks light on references.
    • This is one section that need not be as there are plenty refs available - will look into this too.

Perhaps you would look at these points. I will resume the review as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

More stuff:

• Shootdown
  • the first sentence is too complicated, mixes US and USSR factors without saying which is which, and is not clearly worded. I suggest you replace it with text as follows: "In 1983, Cold War tensions had escalated due to several factors. These included the United States's Strategic Defence Initiative and its deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe. On the Soviet side Operation RYAN was expanded, and the largest fleet exercise to that date was held in the North Pacific."
  • The words "In particular" are unnecessary and should be deleted
  • "leading prior to the event..." What does "leading prior to" mean - is it the same as "leading up to"? What is "the event"?
  • "Lastly" can be deleted. Where was this heightened alert taking place?
  • You say "for that evening", presumably the evening of the shootdown, but this is not clear.
  • "When the jetliner..." you should identify it, since this is its first mention this section. "When KAL007..."
  • In paragraph 3 another "finally" can be deleted
  • I suggest that the short quotation should be absorbed into the text, rather than displayed in decorative quote marks.
  • "...an act that was interpreted by the Soviet pilot as an evasive maneuver." What act, by whom, did the Soviet pilot think was an evasive maneuver?
• Injury to passengers from missile attack
  • Is this the best section title? It doesn't seem to be about passenger injuries.
  • The first sentence needs a citation
  • "twelve minutes" --> 12 minutes
• Post-attack flight and crash
  • The sentence beginning "At this flight level, forward acceleration..." is wordy and clumsily phrased. I think it could be much simplified, to: "At this point forward acceleration, velocity and altitude had all returned to their pre-attack states"
  • The last cockpit voice recorder entry occurred at 18.27.46 while in this phase of the descent..." I'm unsure from your narrative which phase "this" is referring to.
  • "Finally, the aircraft began to descend in spirals..." I think it's important to give a time for this, rather than "finally".
  • The single sentence paragraphs at the end of the section need to be merged, and the last sentence of the section needs a source.
• Missile damage
  • In what way were the hydraulic systems "redundant", i.e. surplus to requirements? They seem pretty critical to me.

Redundancy has more to do with, rather than surplus to requirements, multiple inputs into hydraulic powering of the flying surfaces and other functions of the 747 in such a way that failure of one or more of the four systems does not mean critical failure of the aircraft to fly. Here are the particular redundancy features of the 747 - see particularly toward the bottom [3]

• • When did Major Osipovich claim to have taken off half the wing? This needs citing anyway.

In one of his interviews (will find later) and expounded by ICAO which is quoted and cited in our article:

"Left Wing: Contrary to Major Osipovich's statement that he had taken off half of KAL 007's left wing, ICAO analysis found that the wing was intact: "The interceptor pilot stated that the first missile hit near the tail, while the second missile took off half the left wing of the aircraft... The interceptor's pilot's statement that the second missile took off half of the left wing was probably incorrect. The missiles were fired with a two-second interval and would have detonated at an equal interval. The first detonated at 18:26:02 hours. The last radio transmissions from KE007 to Tokyo Radio were between 18:26:57 and 18:27:15 hours using HF [high frequency]. The HF 1 radio aerial of the aircraft was positioned in the left wing tip suggesting that the left wing tip was intact at this time. Also, the aircraft's maneuvers after the attack did not indicate extensive damage to the left wing."[34]"

• • "the total size of the rupture to the pressurized fuselage was 1.75 square feet..." Better clarify that this was made up from many small ruptures, not just one great gaping hole.

Have added to the following the answer of why the "many small ruptures" rather than the "one great gaping hole" - "Fuselage: Tiny shrapnel from the R-98 medium range air to air proximity fused missle, designed to detonate 50 meters behind the aircraft and sending forward its fragments, punctured the fuselage and caused rapid decompression of the pressurised cabin. The interval of 11 seconds between the sound of missile detonation picked up by the cockpit voice recorder and the sound of the alarm sounding in the cockpit enabled ICAO analysts to determine that the total size of the ruptures to the pressurized fuselage was 1.75 square feet (0.163 m2). (The ICAO determined this from the 11 seconds that it took for the air to rush out of the cabin before the alarm was set off.[36])Bert Schlossberg (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's it for now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• All done. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

More stuff still

• Search and rescue
  • "Each side endeavoured to obstruct or implicate the other" – this charge needs specific citation
    • Done
  • So does the sentence about "open confrontation"
• Soviet search and rescue mission
  • "Would deny knowledge" --> "denied knowledge"
    • Done
  • "...the Russian Federation handover of the military communications..." Clarify who handed over what to whom
    • Done
• Hokkaido finds: The last phrase of the section: "the passenger cabin including the 747's distinctive hump" Suggest "the passenger cabin within the 747's distinctive hump"
  • • Cleaned up - no need to talk about the hump, as it's just a distraction.
• Soviet diver report: I found this section poorly organised, with too many blockquotes. Some specific points:
  • This sentence is a muddle: "The description of the civilian divers stand in sharp contrast to what they had reported the military divers, who had proceeded in visits to KAL007, had seen" "Proceeded should be "preceded", but the sentence is still a complete mess.
  • "More intact"? I think "largely intact" has the meaning you want.
  • The blockquotes attributed to Mickhail Girs are confused. The first has opening quote marks in the middle. Is the second paragraph, beginning "Specialist..." part of the same quote?
  • The sentence beginning "After the military divers..." is another example of mangled prose
  • What is a "simulated search"? Were they pretending to search when they weren't, really?
    • Whole section cleaned up, unecessary quotes deleted.

Have to pause here. Brianboulton (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing...

• Theories about the lack of remains: I have had trouble with the prose in this section. I can't list all the problems but some are indicated below.
  • Bullet point format not advised
  • "The earliest was..." --> "The initial theory was..."
  • This sentence not understood: "A civilian plane was chosen for its deliberately disregarding, or, counting on the loss of human life." What information is being conveyed here?
    • Whole section deleted for giving undue weighting in support of the rescue007.org theory.

This sentence is part of a quote so cannot be changed. Important in the context. What is being conveyed by the Soviet General is that U.S. diregarded the cost in human life in the endeavor to carry out the intelligence mission or, the General implies, the U.S. actually counted on the loss of life in the carrying out of the mission - implying that the U.S. saw a bonus to the intelligence gain if the Soviets would shoot down the aircraft and so the Soviets proven to be barbarians.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Your description of Lieut.Gen. Kamenski is too long-winded - try to condense it.
  • This is part of the Kamenski quote: "Yet in this case, some of the bodies were to have been found during the search operation". Can you check his precise words, as what you have written doesn't make sense.

This again is a quote and cant be changed. Of course, this is a translation from the Russian. I would better translate (but I do not know Russian!), ...some of the bodies should have been found...Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Another problem: "...the total extent of a missile caused ruptures to KAL's fuselage was only 1.75 square feet"

I am going to have to leave this review for a while due to other pressing priorities. I will return when I can. Keep working on the article, it's looking better already. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)