Wikipedia:Peer review/Western Airlines Flight 2605/archive1

Western Airlines Flight 2605

I've listed this article for peer review because…

The article clearly isn't a stub anymore and needs reassessment at the very least. It could probably use additional visibility and improvements from interested parties. It maybe close to GAN article status.

Thanks, Skybunny (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Caeciliusinhorto

• In the lead, the article specifies that Los Angeles International Airport is in Los Angeles, and Mexico City International is in Mexico City. Is that really necessary? I could understand if the airport was one of the "London" Airports which aren't actually in London, but as it is it reads oddly.
• In the section on the accident, the article says that the plane was cleared for a '"Texpepan" approach', but never explains what this means; later we read about an "ILS approach" (which is at least wikilinked) and then a "visual sidestep approach" (redlinked). The article should probably explain this for the general reader; I have absolutely no idea what any of it means.
• The initial death-toll was 71; the final death-toll was 72. Was this because of an error in the initial accounting, or because one person later died of their injuries?
• The article contains many very short paragraphs; you might want to consolidate some of them into longer paragraphs.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I did some work based on Caeciliusinhorto's suggestions.

• Looking at other similar articles, like Pan Am Flight 103, I moved the full expansion of airports and where they are, to the infobox. This should help readability.
• The remark about the specific approach was well taken; I generalized this to talk about instrument (and ILS) approaches, and added a sentence about what a visual sidestep approach is in the article, also linking to where it is discussed in Instrument approach. (One of the problems with discussion of this accident is that it does involve a somewhat technical maneuver going wrong.)
• I did a bit to consolidate paragraphs where I could see to do so.
• I'm pretty sure that the reason for the death-toll being raised from 71 to 72 is that a person later died of their injuries, but this difficult to find and cite. There are reports of the accident on the day it happened, and then it basically disappears from the media. After that, what's available are the final reports of the accident, where by then the number of passengers on the aircraft who died is one higher.
• I was able to discover the reason for the fatality discrepancy through the Mexico City Spanish language newspaper El Informador. A passenger died of his injuries 18 days after the initial crash, which explains the 71 number in early news reports, and 72 listed in the ICAO and NTSB reports.

Skybunny (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC) edited 02:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mr. rnddude

A bunch of simple issues first, some may seem a bit picky:

• after landing on a runway closed for maintenance -> after landing on a runway that had been closed for maintenance.
• 72 of the 88 people on board, plus 1 person on the ground, died. -> plus at least one person on the ground, died.
  • You later mention in the article that up to three people on the ground may have died.
• McDonnel Douglas DC-10-10, this is the first I've ever seen it presented as such, why not just DC-10?
• Weather conditions were deteriorating during Flight 2605's instrument approach. -> Weather conditions deteriorated during Flight 2605's instrument approach.
• A 5:00 weather report indicated visibility of 2-3 nautical miles depending on direction; by 6:00 AM, visibility was described as "zero". -> A 5:00 AM weather reported indicated 2-3 nautical miles of visibility depending on direction; by 6:00 AM, visibility was described as "zero".
  • I know that weather reports describe things in the shortest way possible; Visibility 3 nautical miles, Broken 3000, Temperature two-one, QNH one zero one three, etc. It reads more naturally to go 2-3 .... of visibility, than, visibility of 2-3. But nitpicking.
• Cockpit voice recording audio of the last seconds of the flight indicated that the first officer and captain agreed that they were cleared for 23R (not the runway they were still on approach to). -> Cockpit voice recording audio of the last seconds of the flight indicated that the first officer and captain were aware that they were cleared to land on runway 23R, and not the one they were still on approach to.
  • Do we have the names of the first officer and captain of the flight?
• The captain further stated that they were in fact (still) on the approach to 23L. -> The captain further stated that they were still in fact or in fact, still, on the approach to 23L.
  • One word in brackets, eh.
• The flight's first officer began to describe the ILS approach's missed approach procedure, a climb to 8,500 feet, in a "nonurgent, perfunctory manner"
• 2 g -> 2g
• the crew did apply go-around power -> the crew applied go-around power
  • No need for the italicized did.
• 8 missing and assumed dead -> 8 missing and presumed dead
• "9 passengers in satisfactory condition at American British Cowdray Hospital", what do you mean by satisfactory? perhaps stable, seems less dehumanizing.
• There's a bunch of these;
  • The count of ground injuries and fatalities were variably reported. Ground fatalities were reported from one (the driver of the truck parked on Runway 23L)
  • to as many as three (the driver of the truck and two people in the Eastern Airlines building the DC-10 crashed into).
  • As many as thirty people in all were injured, including those on the ground (airport ground personnel and local residents) injured by flying debris.
• I'd recommend removing the brackets, it looks and reads awkward. For example;
  • Ground fatalities were variably reported to be between one, the driver of the truck parked on Runway 23L, and three, the driver of the truck and two people in the Eastern Airlines building the DC-10 crashed into. As many as thirty people in all were injured by flying debris, including airport ground personnel and local residents.
  • It seems weird to mention that "ground personnel" and local residents are on the ground. That seems to require a bit of commonsense.
• Further, it indicated that landing on the closed 23L required only that the crew continue the flight path they were already on (which was a straight-in ILS approach to 23L) -> It further indicated that landing on the closed runway, 23L, required only that the crew continue the flight path the aircraft was already on, which was a straight-in ILS approach to runway 23L.
• to cover early stages -> to cover the early stages
• The Friday before the Flight 2605 accident -> The Friday before Flight 2605's accident
• he told Ken Tiven -> Lucoff told Ken Tiven
• The Friday before the Flight 2605 accident, he told Ken Tiven, ABC News Midwest bureau chief -> The Friday before Flight 2605's accident, Lucoff told Ken Tiven, ABC New Midwest bureau chief

A couple general statements;

• There appears to be a lot of short sentences. That could potentially be put together. -> There appears to be a lot of short sentences that could potentially be put together. I mean this as a statement about the writing of the article, I'll not a couple later since it's late right now.
• Try to avoid putting little things into brackets, like (still), avoid brackets in the body of the article as much as possible except for things like explaining acronyms, sort of like you did with instrument landing systems (ILS), that's generally the only good reason to put things in brackets.

That's all I have for now. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Query: @Skybunny: G'day, this review seems to have come to a natural conclusion as there haven't been any edits since July 2016, do you wish for me to close it and archive it? The bot that removes it from the PR page appears to be down, but I believe I can manually complete the bot steps. Please let me know your intentions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Please go for it. I know I took at least a couple of the suggestions above to improve the article. Skybunny (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I've archived it now. Thanks for your efforts with the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)