Talk:Lufthansa Flight 615/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Narrative is well-presented and very readable.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No concerns
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues have been addressed; passed

Hello FoxyOrange, I apologise for the two-month delay between nomination and review for your article. I find this article to be of high quality, with verifiable sources that are reliably used.

This that need to be fixed before the article is promoted:

• "On 5 September 1972, during the ...subsequently arrested and held in pre-trial custody." lacks a source
• I believe "of Palestinian political violence " to be potentially inflammatory. This could be remedied by rephrased as "of political violence by a Palestinian terrorist group". This relates to the NPOV criteria of the GA review.
• Lede needs to be expanded with a summary of the actual event.

Some small other comments:

• "On 29 October 1972 (a Sunday), a Lufthansa aircraft was hijacked: " I suggest you add "was hijacked at [x]" or "was hijacked en route between [x] and [y]", as this information
• "If true, this would establish that indeed the release of the prisoners had been planned, rather than having them stand trial in Germany." lacks a source
• "In a large scale covert operation dubbed Wrath of God, Israel would subsequently aim at them being tracked down and liquidated." lacks a source
• It is confusing to read the multiple names for each of the planes. Suggest names be standardised as "the hijacked [Boeing/Luthansa/plane/neither]" and "The plane carrying Cullman" for clarity and readability.
• "On that day, the " for clarity, suggest "Originating at [x], the flight was delayed at Beirut airport..."
• "if the members of Black September would not be released from the German prison." is uncited.
• "chairman Herbert Culmann ": chairman of what...?
• "The HS.125 left " for clarity: "the HS 125 carrying Culmann..."
• "the hijacked Boeing also landed ": "the hijacked plane landed at..."
• "first Black September member arrived " : "was transported to" (as I am guessing this was involuntary)
• "the Lufthansa plane " -> "the hijacked plane"
• "Twenty minutes after the Condor jet" jet -> plane
• "prevented the Lufthansa jet " -> "the hijacked Lufthansa" Same again for "thus allowing the Lufthansa jet"

I again apologise for the long delay, and await your comment. LT910001 (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by nominator

Dear LT910001, thanks for your review. I won't be able to work on the article before Friday, so here are just a few quick remarks.

• I very much appreciate you having pointed out the confusing identifications I used for the different aircraft. I fully get your point, and will do my very best to resolve the issue.

Thanks. LT910001 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Concerning the short lead section, I guess this will become a bit harder. I quite like the current one (basically, what happened was that a Lufthansa jet was hijacked, the attackers demanded some prisoners be released, their demands were accepted, Germany was subsequently criticised). But I also can understand that more information about the course of actual hijacking may be desirable already in the lede, so again I will do as suggested.
• Then, the part about the "Palestinian political violence". Indeed, I was unsure which word to use here, because I wanted to omit the possibly loaded "terrorism". I therefore chose the exact wording of the respective Wikipedia article title. But now, with you having suggested "political violence by a Palestinian terrorist group", couldn't I use "an act of terrorism committed by a Palestinian group" instead and scrap the cumbersome "political violence" altogether?

A good suggestion. I try and use the words of the article if I am proposing a change. LT910001 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• And last but not least, about the missing source at "On 5 September 1972, during the ...subsequently arrested and held in pre-trial custody." Is this really necessary? I mean, this is a very basic summary of the Munich massacre; can't this be considered common knowledge? Of course, I will happily chose from virtually any comprehensive source about the Munich massacre, but I have to admit that I will feel somewhat silly when adding a source just for the sake of having one.

Yes, a source is necessary as this is not the lede. Also considering the diverse range of users of Wikipedia, this may not be common knowledge for all and sundry. LT910001 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the work you put on the review. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :). I presume you have translated the majority of the information in this article from the German (just guessing based on the sources). If that is the case, thanks for helping expand the English Wikipedia. I will await your changes. LT910001 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Update

Dear LT910001, I've just edited the article in accordance with your suggestions (at least, I hope so): It now features a rewritten, longer lead section (including a different approach to the "Palestinian violence" problem), and a more consistent naming of the different aircraft. How do you like it?

• The lede is much better. LT910001 (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would like to apologise for that unprofessional comment about feeling "silly when adding a source just for the sake of having one". On the contrary, the search for a suitable source turned out to be quite beneficial, as it let me take another look at the other references, extracting some more content to be used in the article. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for being so polite! On occasion these GA reviews feel like I'm juggling firebrands. LT910001 (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Overall the article is much better and has improved in spades. The timeline is now very clear. I have a few small issues, particularly pertaining to NPOV, that remain, but the article is now much more readable. I have made changes to the GA table above to reflect this. LT910001 (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Nine citizens of unspecified Arab countries" -> any way to find out where they came from? I find it odd that the Arabic passengers get lumped together but the Europeans get separate mentions.
• For clarity, reword "On that day, the flight was delayed by around one hour: Originally scheduled to depart Beirut at 05:45,[8] take-off took place only at 07:01." to "Departure from Beirut was delayed by about one hour. Originally scheduled to depart at ..."  Done
• Again, I take issue with "two Arab passengers" as "Arab" is a class description. It would be very reasonable to say "two Egyptian passengers" but if we were to substitute "two Western passengers threatened" there may be an underlying POV presented.
• "This put the German side " -> "This put the Germans" (remove 'side')  Done
• In retrospect, "The hijacking" section would benefit from an image, although this is certainly not necessary from the GA perspective.  no need
• Again, "(as well as in other Arab countries)," I think it would be better to specify the countries rather than lump them together.

Concerning the "passengers of unspecified Arab countries:" There are many sources supporting the fact that there were 7 crew and 13 passengers on board, but I found only one reference breaking down some nationalities: [1], a 2006 article by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), which in turn attributes this piece of information to an article published by Lebanese newspaper L'Orient-Le Jour on 30 October 1972. I'm recalling that I have read somewhere that on the day following the hijacking, Lufthansa sent an airplane to Tripolis to pick up the "Western" hostages, so it seems somewhat logical that their nationalities are known, whilst the remaining passengers were simply referred to as "Arabs". At that time (1972), airport security was virtually non-existent compared to today's standards, and I'm not sure if passenger listings were mandatory. Due to the hijackers of Flight 615 having gone into hiding in Libya, their identity has never been revealed. Of course, with the evidence being so thin, it might be better to remove the passengers' nationalities altogether.

The situation with the "reactions from Arab countries" is quite similar: All sources I found use this generic term without further specification. Again per the FAZ article: "The Libyan authorities let the terrorists go into hiding. In the Arab world, they were celebrated as heroes." And according to a Zeit article from 3 November 1972 ([2]): "In the Arab world, the liberation has been celebrated as an act of heroism. The unanimous praise prompted chancellor Brandt to a serious warning: The Arab governments should learn to accept that with such actions, they do not serve their interests." So, not even the chancellor cared to distinguish the countries, but lumped them all together. The documentary One Day in September has imaginery of such celebrations, if I recall correctly accompanied by a commentary like "all over the Arab world..."--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

All right. Would we be able to compromise by replacing "unspecified" with "unknown" and "Arab" with "Middle Eastern?" (wikilinked)? I feel that Middle Eastern is less pejorative than "Arab". LT910001 (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

But there is a difference between Arab world and Middle East. Libya (the only clearly identified country where such celebrations took place), is not part of the Middle East. So, I could write "at a number of places in North Africa and the Middle East" or "in Libya and other countries of the region".--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you are indeed correct, that is a good suggestion. LT910001 (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

With the changes above being made, I find this article to match the GARC in being well-written and broad, neutral and well-sourced, and without any outstanding issues. I have updated the table above and will make the required changes to promote to GA status shortly. Well done and I wish you well on your wiki-travels. LT910001 (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)