Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Settled Issue Settled issue for this article: break out Hong Kong and Taiwan as separate entries from China in the passenger list and other areas dealing with the citizenship of individuals. Please see Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370/Archive_2#Hong_Kong for details.
Good article Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 10, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed
February 18, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 8, 2014, and on March 24, 2014.
Current status: Good article
Toolbox

New and useful reliable source for insertion[edit]

This is a piece from the Associated Press about the discoveries made during the search for this flight. Perhaps an editor more familiar with this article would be better placed than me to insert it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! That is an interesting article, although some of the things learned are very generic. I don't think there's anything from it to add to this article (plane tracking is already mentioned). We have the article Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and the lessons could be added to that article. Improved satellite data could be added to Analysis of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 satellite communications. AHeneen (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting page view statistics[edit]

As the first anniversary approaches in less than a week, I think it's interesting how few pageviews there are for the subpages. For the 90-day period 2 December to 1 March (90 days is the most that can be viewed from the page view tool):

While this article should be expected to receive substantially more views than the other pages, I nonetheless find the huge discrepancy between this page (nearly 50x) and the search page very odd. Just though this was worth pointing out on the talk page here...not saying there's anything that needs to be done. AHeneen (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review suggestions[edit]

  1. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 200kg, use 200 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 200 kg.[?]
  2. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 10 km.
  3. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  4. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  5. Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  6. There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. it has been might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  7. Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behaviour (B) (American: behavior), harbour (B) (American: harbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), travelled (B) (American: traveled), ageing (B) (American: aging), grey (B) (American: gray), programme (B) (American: program ), sceptic (B) (American: skeptic).
  8. The script has spotted the following contractions: isn't, don't, don't, didn't, Don't, can't, don't, HASN'T, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  9. Please provide citations for all of the [citation needed]s.[?]

Copied from peer review bot....--MONGO 21:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the bullets to numbers to make it much easier to reply (I hope you don't mind). I think 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 are just general review points given by the tool for all articles. The MOS allows units to be abbreviated if they appear many times; the first instance of "kilometre" is spelled in both lead (which I just changed) & in "Search" section, but this is a well-known abbreviation & the example of 10 km appears further down in the article (it is also used in the convert template). There have been several users using automated scripts go through the article and clean up wrong spellings, non-breaking spaces, and dates. I don't think there are any currently in the article.
The ToC is long (#5), but this is a long article; it already has 3 daughter articles and two related articles (unofficial disappearance theories & JACC). It would be great if #6 gave specific examples (I know this is copied from the review tool); the only places were I think any phrases that could be considered "Weasel words" are used is in the "Aftermath" section, where there are plenty of references. Contractions only appear in a quote and in titles of references (#8). There are no "citation needed" templates in the article (#9). The article has recently been cleaned up as it was recently promoted to good article status. AHeneen (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional images of exterior of aircraft[edit]

A couple users have recently added images of the exterior of the aircraft to the article. Adding any to the "Aircraft" section is problematic because there are images, a Commons template, and table in adjacent sections such that an additional image in this section would look too crowded. I also removed an image of a similar plane from the "Information sharing" section, mainly because there are plenty of images of the actual aircraft that disappeared (9M-MRO). There is already an image of the plane in the infobox. I don't really think more are needed, but if others would like to add any, please discuss the issue here. I think the "Malaysia Airlines" section is the best for another image of the aircraft. AHeneen (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO no article of this type needs multiple photos of the same aircraft (let alone a "simmilar" aircraft), crowded or not. This user has tried the same thing in Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501, never discussing or even writing an edit summary, and I have reverted them there. ―Mandruss  11:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Mandruss not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Dead battery[edit]

The report says the ULB battery was dead a year before the flight took place? [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Expired (past its expiry date), not dead. ―Mandruss  21:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes. So no one knows if it was dead or not. But in theory it could have been? Isn't this fact slightly notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure it could have been, but there's no way to know. The content has already been added, here, but it needs some rephrasing and preferably a better source. ―Mandruss  21:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm on the verge of agreeing with you. And the second source just doesn't work. Ideally I think a source should explain what "expired" means in terms of serviceability or likelihood of being functional. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I found a New York Times source, which will be an improvement, although it's somewhat fuzzy on the question. I'll work on it. ―Mandruss  21:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
ABC News says this:
"The report also found the battery powering the underwater locator beacon on the plane's flight data recorder was due to expire in December 2012, and there was no evidence to suggest it had been replaced.
However, the battery on the plane's cockpit voice recorder had been replaced and was due to expire in June last year.
It noted that while batteries could still operate past their official expiry they could lose effectiveness, calling it an "oversight"."
[2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
See my edit; moved the information to Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Flight_recorders. ―Mandruss  22:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Martinevans123: The passage with your changes bolded: The March 2015 investigative report revealed that the battery for the ULB in MH370's aircraft's flight data recorder had passed its expiry date in December 2012, so that the ULB may not have been functional at the time of the accident.

  • "MH370's aircraft's" does not make sense.
  • "had" is ok but really a waste of a word.
  • My "that ULB" referred to the FDR's ULB as opposed to the CVR's ULB. "So that" is not good grammar. ―Mandruss  22:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess you left, so I copyedited it. ―Mandruss  22:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
There was a bit of an edit conflict there. I don't believe "had" is a "waste of a word", I think it's correct grammar. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Towelette discovered[edit]

According to the Australian press, a Malaysian Airlines towelette was found washed up on a beach in western Australia. There is speculation this may be from MH370. Should a mention of this be made in the article? Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 04:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait until there is some sort of official remark after testing. It seems very strange that such an object was found in July, but is only now in the news. They say it was handed over to police, but not when (in July? just recently?). I'm inclined to think this is a hoax (it was found in July, but only came to light at the one-year anniversary??). Furthermore, if it entered the water where investigators believe it did, then the currents drift west...not towards Western Australia. If a mention is made it is more appropriate in the Search for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 article. AHeneen (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)