Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 253/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Airplaneman ✈ 18:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- In the Al-Qaeda involvement section, first sentence: On December 28, 2009, Obama in his first address said the incident... - does it mean his first address related to the incident, or his first ever address, or something else (it's unclear at the moment)? I'm pretty sure it's the first option; please clarify. Airplaneman ✈ 21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- There are a number of dead links in the references, including references numbers 15, 70, 79, 87, 144, 145, 152, and 159. Please also see the checklinks results. Airplaneman ✈ 21:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- All of them tagged, can't find any online archives of them yet. —fetch·comms 02:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, that's fine. Please add working links when you can. Airplaneman ✈ 21:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- All of them tagged, can't find any online archives of them yet. —fetch·comms 02:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- There are a number of dead links in the references, including references numbers 15, 70, 79, 87, 144, 145, 152, and 159. Please also see the checklinks results. Airplaneman ✈ 21:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- The passage On April 6, 2010, it was reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. is unreferenced in both the lead and al-Awlaki's section (last paragraph). Please provide a reference to (at least) the passage in the section. Airplaneman ✈ 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- This passage is mentioned a third time in the "domestic response" section, this time with a ref. I'll add it to the other passage (not to the lead passage). Does it really need to be mentioned thrice? How about cutting it from the "domestic response" section? Airplaneman ✈ 22:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I didn't realize it was also in the domestic response section, or I would've removed it earlier (one of the biggest challenges for me before was removing redundant/duplicated info!). Removed now. I only referenced quotes in the lede, so I didn't add a citation there, hopefully that's fine. —fetch·comms 01:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Airplaneman ✈ 02:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I didn't realize it was also in the domestic response section, or I would've removed it earlier (one of the biggest challenges for me before was removing redundant/duplicated info!). Removed now. I only referenced quotes in the lede, so I didn't add a citation there, hopefully that's fine. —fetch·comms 01:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- This passage is mentioned a third time in the "domestic response" section, this time with a ref. I'll add it to the other passage (not to the lead passage). Does it really need to be mentioned thrice? How about cutting it from the "domestic response" section? Airplaneman ✈ 22:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Otherwise, everything's in order. Airplaneman ✈ 23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Very comprehensive. I don't think it's overly comprehensive, although FA reviewers may ask for you to trim some things (as in the first FA review). I don't have a problem with it; it's ~2,000 kb smaller than when the FA candidate was reviewed, and the detail provides a very full, detailed picture of what happened. Airplaneman ✈ 21:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Passes easily. Airplaneman ✈ 23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Yup. Airplaneman ✈ 23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail: Passing with flying colors :). Definitely GA status. For a possible second FAC, I would recommend addressing the unaddressed concerns (if any) from the first FA review. Congrats! Airplaneman ✈ 02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
That was, uh, fast (not really complaining, though...) —fetch·comms 02:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Additional comments[edit]
- I know this might have been discussed before, but do you think it's worth mentioning this event's nickname, the "Christmas Day Bombing", in the lead or somewhere else in the article? I haven't a preference either way, but it's something to consider. Airplaneman ✈ 21:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think it was removed from the lede per some MOS thing or other (or maybe I am remembering wrong), but I think I could stick it in somewhere (if I can find a ref for it). —fetch·comms 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Added in 2nd overall paragraph, does it look OK? —fetch·comms 02:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Looks great! Airplaneman ✈ 02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Added in 2nd overall paragraph, does it look OK? —fetch·comms 02:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think it was removed from the lede per some MOS thing or other (or maybe I am remembering wrong), but I think I could stick it in somewhere (if I can find a ref for it). —fetch·comms 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)