Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adam Air Flight 574/archive1 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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 not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all the criteria (sources included, good sections) for FAC and is a part of an interesting topic Blackjack48  ♠t ♣c 06:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
  • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
  • Em dashes are usually unspaced.
  • "They had been moved 10–15 metres", "were 1,400 metres apart" - need conversions
  • "It was reported on June 28, 2007, that Adam Air..." "marine official said on January 24" - dates need linking
  • Full dates in the footnotes need linking.
  • En dashes should be used in the footnotes, unless part of a title where hyphens are used.
  • Ref 103 is unreliable.
  • Flight International is a highly respectable aviation magazine and I have utmost confidence in everything it publishes. What issues are there with it's use as a source?
  • A word only needs to be wikilinked once within each section, e.g. Flight 172 in Aftermath section.
  • "equating to U.S.$1 million" - the fullstops aren't needed, and only the first occurence of $ needs the US. Epbr123 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a little surprised to see this nominated as I would hold it still requires at the very least major reference conversion, and I'd like to trim it back a little, too. I'll try to get that done within the space of the FAC run, if I can. Otherwise, it probably is about ready to come here, but I did want to see the work done prior to nomination time. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • Article says the black boxes "will be sent" for analysis - this can't be correct, can it? - there are other parts that were written long ago and need to be updated and deleted as appropriate
  • Section on the recovery of the black boxes is needlessly detailed, probably because of the same thing; it was written long ago when those details were interesting and important, and editors were probably trying to keep up with the news cycles
  • Intro paragraph says some of the family members have proposed a faulty valve, implying it's the fault of Boeing, but this isn't brought up later in the article (as far as I scanned)
  • I think personally that this article should not be Featured until there's a verdict from the black boxes' analysis. In my view, aircraft crashes are more like current events when the verdict isn't yet in. When the cause is ascertained, the event, or its reportage, seems complete. (Or if the black boxes are analyzed and "cause not ascertained" is the verdict.) This isn't the fault of any of the contributors to the article, of course. Tempshill (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.