Talk:Avianca Flight 052/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 13:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am a WIki Cup participant, I have my own GAN (CMLL World Tag Team Championship) and I also have a Feature Article (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my review but it would be appreciated.

I am about to start my review of this article, normally I provide my input in bits and pieces over a day or two so expect running updates for a while. In this case, I will also review the comments made during the two Feature Article Candidate reviews and pull out anything that may still apply.  MPJ-US  13:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Feature Article 1 Unresolved issues

• Nothing unresolved as far as I can tell.

Feature Article 2 Unresolved issues

• There are mentions of the cultural/language barrier but also a ton of links and supposed references that did not actually have anything to do with this flight. To say "well there are language and cultural barriers" is not the same as "this accident was caused by those barriers"? I will go through the sources, if any tie this specific flight to it then I'll consider if the representation in the article is appropriate. I believe SandyGeorgia also pointed out some grammatical issues, which I will check against the current version to see if they still apply.

To me those are the issues that need to be looked at and I will work both into my general review.

GA Toolbox

So I normally get the Toolbox links out of the way first, often the hit on issues that need to be corrected.

Peer review

• Per WP:LEAD an article of this size (56ish kb) should have a three-four paragraph lead
  • The prose size is ~30 KB, I think. sst✈ 05:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
    • If I copy the text from the page in read format (leaving out the reference section) it comes to around 33,000 characters according to the DYK character count too. So that's the 3-4 paragraph range as far as I can tell, MPJ-US  12:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
      •  Done sst✈ 12:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Redundancies - the tool points out some redundancies, I would suggest looking into those. It will be something I look at too when I do my read through.
• "didn't" should not be used outside of direct quotes.
  •  Done sst✈ 12:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations

• Y - comes back as "highly unlikely" so I am good there.

Disambiguations Links

• Y - No problems

External Links

• Dead links

• 7
• 8
• 10
• 11
• 12

• All fixed. sst✈ 05:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed Y

Images

• None of the images have Alt text. Please add
• No license issues that I can see.

Sources

• Referene 22 seems to lack data
• The rest looks good to me format wise, reliability wise etc.

General

• Isn't "handoff" two words?
  • I don't think so. It may either be "hand-off" or "handoff", but "hand off" is a different term. wikt:handoff sst✈ 15:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Same thing for "flightpath"
  •  Done
• "Thirty-seven fire and ambulance companies as well as" should be "Thirty-seven fire and ambulance companies, as well as"
  •  Done
• "surgery for the Nassau" should be "surgery of the Nassau"
  •  Done
• "children in the darkness afterwards" should be "children in the darkness afterward"
  •  Done
• "communications from the ATC personnel was "proper", communications is plural so it should be "were proper"
  •  Done
• "birthdates" shoud be "birth dates"
  •  Done
• It may be helpful to put a note in on what "Expect Further Clearance" means since it is a term called into question.
  • There is a footnote explaining what it means. sst✈ 15:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• I think the "Investigation" section adequately covers the language/term problems between what Avianca taught their pilots and what the FAA's guidelines are. From a lanauge standpoint the concerns pointed out looks to be represented fairly. And the controversy section follows up on the lack of standardized terms
• Not sure what the specific cultural issues were referred to in the FAC were about, none of the cited sources provided were Avianca 52 specific so they really have no room in this article.
• I do not see a reference for the allegation of drug trafficking nor the FAA denials
• Under appearnces in media I think it may be good to state that Gladwell's book does not specifically cite the Avianca 52 crash, just to be clear.
  •  Done

Following up the FAC comments that really struck me as still being applicable to the article.

• The lead uses the term "result" or variations on this, can you mix it up a bit in the lead?
• Settle damages due to the victims" - "Settled to pay for for the damages to the victims and their families"

@SSTflyer: - Woops, forgot to put this article on hold when I made my last comments, so I'm putting it on hold now for at least 7 days to allow for improvements.  MPJ-US  12:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: - So just a quick summary of issues left.

• Reference 22 is a little too bare, can you add any data around it?
  •  Not done The reference is for linking the full text of an excerpt of the Code of Federal Regulations. It uses the {{CodeFedReg}} template, and I think a wikilink to an article and an external link to the full text is sufficient. sst✈ 11:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Since the linked document has an actual date listed I would suggest at least the "date" and "accessdate" parameters added.  MPJ-US  11:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• No reference for the allegation of drug trafficking nor the FAA denials.
  •  Done
• The lead uses the term "result" or variations on this, can you mix it up a bit in the lead?
  •  Done
• Settle damages due to the victims" - "Settled to pay for for the damages to the victims and their families"
  •  Done

That's it, I only see those four issues left.  MPJ-US  18:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• The references formatting is a minor issue, I will pass it for GA. Great work.  MPJ-US  11:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)