Talk:2001 Avjet Gulfstream III crash

GA passed

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? Pass

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Additional comments : I would only request that the article be expanded with extra information like what were the settlements for the other victims? Lincher 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Name of craft

Was the aircraft actually named "Avjet Aspen Crash?" If not, the opening sentence needs rewording, because that's what it sounds like. Rampart 11:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A specific wording suggestion, if you have one, is welcome. Crum375 11:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability

How is this incident notable? – Zntrip 20:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First, it's an accident, not an incident (per NTSB's definition). Second, it's notable by virtue of its being reported in numerous mainstream publications, including newspapers, NTSB, ASN, and professional magazines. The references included in this article are just samples. In general, a charter jet crashing with 18 fatalities, where the accident investigation results in safety rule changes, and over 11.7$M in publicized litigation settlements, is well above average in notability. Crum375 20:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it's notable as the dumb f**k charter customer didn't get his dinner party. All he got was everyone on board, including himself, killed.

And if he'd come into the cockpit while I was flying and tried to pressure me into landing when I didn't think it safe I would have threatened to have the police meet the aircraft wherever I did eventually land and have them arrest the c**t for "threatening behaviour" and "endangering an aircraft while in flight" - both serious arrestable offences. No contract or job is worth dying for. Just ask the dead pilot's relatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.232 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2001 Avjet Aspen crash/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

The problems with lack of in-line citations in some sections, which led to GA-status being withdrawn at WP:GAR appear to have been addressed. I will now carry out a more detailed review of this article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Yes

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes. However, Ref 1, which is invoked 12 times, is a 41 page PDF file. A page number, or pages numbers, aught to be provided each time this reference is called. This might mean moving the reference as a whole into, say, a source page and then grouping the in-line citations into "clusters" of the same page or range of pages, such as NSTB pages 2-3, NSTB pages 25-27, etc.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA renewal and your effort. Crum375 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)