Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vincent60030 (talk · contribs) 16:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It has good references and suitable inline citations and also didn't contain any original research.

It covered literally all the topics and the main aspects of the topic is well-written. The article has a very neutral point on view about the flight incident and is a fixed incident since it already happened a year ago with no new activities currently present.

Additional information about this review

Note: This review was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Another doubtful GA review (18 February 2015; it will probably be archived to archive 21 or 22 of that page). Some questioned whether this was a sufficient review, but the consensus was that the article deserves the GA rating and reassessment is not needed. AHeneen (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

For future reference I am including the following notes about the page stability to this review page. In the event the aircraft is located, the following explains to that the article will likely not fall below GA unless there is a substantial amount of new details that should be in the article and those details aren't added to the article in a reasonable amount of time. However, the article will not drop below GA status just because the aircraft is found because most details will belong in Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and not this article. The following is an excerpt of a post by me on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 on 22 January 2015, under the heading "Notes for the Good Article review" (that discussion will probably be archived to archive 10 or 11 of that page):

Now on to the other stability issue. The plane hasn't been found and there's still a search going on for it, so major changes will be made to this article, right? Not exactly. First of all, there is a separate article for the search and only a summary style-section is in this article. As the search progresses, most information will be added to the search article, not here. As far as finding the aircraft and this article needing to be expanded with information about the causes of the accident, you have to consider the time-frame and how much content needs to be added at what point. If pieces of the aircraft are found tomorrow, it will take weeks to map the debris field, after which officials will determine which pieces are a priority to raise and analyze. At that point, there really would not be much to add to this article beyond adding the coordinates and changing some sentences to reflect that the aircraft did crash and that the location is known. That alone will take a few months. Some details may emerge as the wreckage is explored and raised, for example only one body may be in the cockpit, suggesting a hijacking, or the oxygen masks may have been deployed, supporting the hypoxia scenario. Most likely, however, there will only be a few details, disclosed/learned over an extended period of time, that would require just a little addition of content to this article. The article will need to be expanded with a modest amount of content when the final report (or any significant preliminary report) is released and it will take a year or, likely, a few years for the investigation to be conducted once the aircraft is found. Of course, this all depends on the aircraft being found. Therefore, if promoted to a GA, the GA status would not be threatened by the aircraft being found, so long as editors add new information (info about the search goes in the search article). The article may fall below GA status if it is not updated quickly after the final report is issued, but that may not occur for several years.

AHeneen (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)