Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review

Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page (talk) Notability & Style guide (talk) Showcase & Popular pages Announcements and open tasks (talk → Maintenance (talk) → Article alerts → New articles (talk) → AfD record (talk) → Resources (talk)
Departments Assessment (Log) (talk) → B-Class / A-Class → Instructions Collaboration (talk) Peer review (talk) Outreach department (talk) → Current newsletter New! Contest (talk)
Project organization Coordinators (talk) Members (talk) Project banner (talk) Portals Project category (talk)
Templates Infobox templates → Aviation infobox (talk) → Airport infobox (talk) → Airline infobox (talk) → Aircraft infobox (talk) → Aviator infobox (talk) → Aircraft occurrence infobox (talk) → Company infobox (talk) Navigation boxes (talk
Sub-projects Aircraft project (talk) → Engines task force (talk) Airlines project (talk) → Defunct Airlines project (talk) Airports project (talk) Gliding project (talk) Rotorcraft (talk) Military aviation (talk) Aviation accident (talk) Air sports task force (talk) Aerospace biography (talk

The review department of the Aviation WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles within its scope.

The department hosts two forms of review internal to the project:

• Peer review (an informal review meant to provide ideas for further improvement)
• A-Class review (a formal review of a candidate for an A-Class quality assessment)

It also provides a convenient collection of aviation articles currently undergoing formal review outside the project:

• Featured article candidates
• Featured article review
• Non-article featured content candidates

Toolbox

• Auto peer reviewer, Dablinks, Check web links, Alt text viewer

Peer review

Nomination procedure

Anyone can request an peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.

To add a nomination:

Step 1 - Create nomination subpage

Create a nomination subpage; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review. To create your own subpage, enter the name of the article you want to nominate in the form below (for example Wright Flyer) and click the "Create new nomination" button.

Step 2 - Transclude and link

Transclude the newly created subpage to the Peer review list direct link), pasting {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees.

Step 3 - Advertise and notify

1. Advertise the review by adding a link at {{WPAVIATION Review alerts}}, and add peer-review=yes to the {{WPAVIATION}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax). This creates a notice to notifying other editors of the review.

How to respond to a request

• Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not link your username: it is easily confused with an article title.
• Feel free to correct the article yourself.

How to remove a request
In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may remove to the archive any

• inactive listings or listings older than one month,
• inappropriate or abandoned listings (where the nominator has not replied to comments)
• articles that have become featured article candidates

After removing the listing, contributors should replace the peer-review=yes tag in the banner with old-peer-review=yes.

How to resubmit a request
If your request has been removed, please feel free to renominate it for peer review at a later time:

1. Move the old peer review page to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archive1]] or the next open archive
2. Edit [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME]], removing the redirect, and leaving [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archive1]] as a link to the archived discussion.
3. Update the article talk page to reflect the new link to the archived peer review
4. Place {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees below.

• Current archive: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/Archive

Requests

Please add new requests below this line

Alaska Airlines

Toolbox
Automated tips∗ Disambig links External links Alt text Edit count Edit timeline * Further information

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been making lots of improvements to this article and I eventually want to get this article up to Good Article and Featured Article status. I want all your suggestions on what could be improved, added, removed, etc. Anyone is welcome to comment, be it a comprehensive review of every last thing in this article (that would be MUCH appreciated) or just a short comment with a few comments and suggestions.

Thanks,

Compdude123 (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• The first thing I notice is that the article is very heavily dependent on material published by AA, which of course will not be NPOV. For a few simple statements of fact, this might be reasonable, but for an overall picture of the carrier it isn't. In cases where it is absolutely necessary, the citations should make it clear that they refer to official publications. Refs 67-73, for example, all seem to be based on press releases by AA or their supplier GoGo. Though in one case the Seattle Times adds the words "The airline said" to maintain a semblance of objective tone, that doesn't provide objectivity of wp:WEIGHT, even were we presupposing that the coverage is accurate. The article's scope should not be based on what the subject wishes to have widely known. For instance, it omits any mention of the concerns over the possible safety hazards of in-flight WiFi radio frequency interference that have been widely discussed. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

de Havilland Mosquito

Toolbox
Automated tips∗ Disambig links External links Alt text Edit count Edit timeline * Further information

I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone a great deal of hard work and discussion and (possibly with some tweaking) it is up for an A-Class review

Thanks,

◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 08:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Compdude123

I have never done anything with this article, so I thought that a fresh set of eyes might be good for it. By the way you might want to promote it to GA-Class before you promote it to A-Class. GA-Class comes first, I believe. Anyway here's my review:

Lead section

• In the third paragraph of the lead, what year did the Normandy Campaign take place? What about the Battle of the Atlantic?
• In the fourth paragraph you might want to spell out "CBI" in CBI Theater, as well as RAAF. But make sure to put the abbreviations in parentheses.

Development

• In the very first paragraph it mentions that the Mosquito was built out of wood. This seems pretty unique for a WWII aircraft, and you might want to mention that in the lead.
• "...a vast improvement on the 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) Handley Page H.P.42, and other biplanes, it was replacing." You probably should get rid of the comma before "...it was replacing." as that seems a bit weird.
• "...compensated for the low power de Havilland Gipsy Twelve engines used,"--Change to "...compensated for the low power of the de Havilland Gipsy Twelve engines that the aircraft used,"
• Despite some of these minor issues, this first part of the development section (before subsections come along) gives me a pretty good grasp of previous aircraft which the Mosquito's design was based off of.

Air Ministry bomber requirements and concepts (subsection)

• In the first sentence where it says "3000 pounds," get rid of the "s" on pounds.

Inception of the De Havilland fast bomber (subsection)

• In the photo caption for the De Havilland Albatross pic, get rid of the "Photo-Flight International" part. Such info belongs on the photo's description page.
• How does the footnote (nb1) relate to the context of the article?
• That first paragraph is a little long. Consider splitting it into two.
• The second footnote should be incorporated into the prose since it adds meaningful context to the article. It seems to be important enough to be in the article and not a footnote because it tells of the Air Ministry's response to de Havilland's design.
• "On 5 October 1939, with the new war a month old,"-Just say "World War II" here instead of "the new war."
• Spelling error(?): "sceptical" should be changed to "skeptical," unless that's actually the British English spelling of the word.
• How does the fourth footnote relate to the surrounding text? Move it down; see my comment on this below.

Project Mosquito (subsection)

• Consider incorporating the fifth footnote into the text.

Prototypes and test flights (subsection)

• Where it says airscrews (right before ref 35 in first paragraph, second sentence), consider changing that to propellers.
• In the second paragraph, make "pound" plural.
• In the fourth paragraph, where it says "teething problems," maybe change that to "buffeting problems" or something like that. If this relates to another issue with the aircraft, explain it.
• "Cunningham concluded that when the type was fitted with radar..." - Footnote 4, which I mentioned earlier, should be moved down to here as it has to do with the fact that the word "radar" was coined later on in WWII.
• In the paragraph regarding on aircraft being refitted with Merlin engines, explain what "snowguards" are.

Design

• "(Based on the FB Mk VI)" --What is that supposed to mean?
• Mid-wing aircraft or shoulder wing? Which one? It can't be both.
• In the construction sub-section as well as the systems sub-section, what is "oleos" supposed to mean? (Interestingly enough, if I type that into MS Word that is an actual word)

Operational history

• "The Mosquito was first announced publicly on 26 September 1942 after the Oslo Mosquito raid of 25 September." Change to "The Mosquito was first announced publicly on 26 September 1942, the day after the Oslo Mosquito raid took place."
• The units were "little more than glorified squadrons and achieved little against the elusive RAF aircraft." Who is quoted here?
• I love the quote of that German guy. It really shows how powerful the aircraft was against the Germans.

Variants

• I like how you organized the variants by specific role (ie, bomber, fighter, photo-reconnaissance, etc)

Production

Is it really necessary to have a separate section for this? I'm not so sure, but maybe it would be better to put it in the Development section.

Operators

You should mention civil operators as well as military operators. I know there's a sub-article for this but it should at least be mentioned here.

Survivors

I know this has a sub-article too, but expand this section more. What other airworthy examples of this aircraft remained after WWII? What about aircraft on display in museums?

Anyway, I think you've done a pretty good job on this article so far, just needs some improvements before going up to A-Class. And again, I think you should promote this to good article status and then go for A-Class. Hope this helps, Compdude123 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice - not all my work BTW:

Lead section

*In the third paragraph of the lead, what year did the Normandy Campaign take place? What about the Battle of the Atlantic?

• In the fourth paragraph you might want to spell out "CBI" in CBI Theater, as well as RAAF. But make sure to put the abbreviations in parentheses.

(Sorted - in addition there was some confusion in the roles undertaken by the Mosquito, and the grammar was all over the place, so this has been addressed)

;Development

*In the very first paragraph it mentions that the Mosquito was built out of wood. This seems pretty unique for a WWII aircraft, and you might want to mention that in the lead. (Done)

• "...a vast improvement on the 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) Handley Page H.P.42, and other biplanes, it was replacing." You probably should get rid of the comma before "...it was replacing." as that seems a bit weird. (Done)
• "...compensated for the low power de Havilland Gipsy Twelve engines used,"--Change to "...compensated for the low power of the de Havilland Gipsy Twelve engines that the aircraft used," (Done)
• Despite some of these minor issues, this first part of the development section (before subsections come along) gives me a pretty good grasp of previous aircraft which the Mosquito's design was based off of.

Air Ministry bomber requirements and concepts (subsection)

• In the first sentence where it says "3000 pounds," get rid of the "s" on pounds.(converted)

Inception of the De Havilland fast bomber (subsection)

*In the photo caption for the De Havilland Albatross pic, get rid of the "Photo-Flight International" part. Such info belongs on the photo's description page.(Done)

*How does the footnote (nb1) relate to the context of the article? (Not really worth mentioning, omitted)

*That first paragraph is a little long. Consider splitting it into two.(Done)

*The second footnote should be incorporated into the prose since it adds meaningful context to the article. It seems to be important enough to be in the article and not a footnote because it tells of the Air Ministry's response to de Havilland's design.(Done)

• "On 5 October 1939, with the new war a month old,"-Just say "World War II" here instead of "the new war." (Done)

*Spelling error(?): "sceptical" should be changed to "skeptical," unless that's actually the British English spelling of the word.(Sceptical correct British spelling)

*How does the fourth footnote relate to the surrounding text? Move it down; see my comment on this below.(AI equipment was specified for the Mosquito: it is better to explain that AI is an early British term for Radar the first time the term AI is used in the article. Cunningham would not have said Radar in 1941, so this has been changed)

Project Mosquito (subsection)

*Consider incorporating the fifth footnote into the text. (Done)

Prototypes and test flights (subsection)

*Where it says airscrews (right before ref 35 in first paragraph, second sentence), consider changing that to propellers.(Done)

*In the second paragraph, make "pound" plural.(Changed)

*In the fourth paragraph, where it says "teething problems," maybe change that to "buffeting problems" or something like that. If this relates to another issue with the aircraft, explain it. (Done - other problems mentioned in the text included the u/c doors remaining ajar, and castoring problems with the tailwheel.)

• "Cunningham concluded that when the type was fitted with radar..." - Footnote 4, which I mentioned earlier, should be moved down to here as it has to do with the fact that the word "radar" was coined later on in WWII. (See comment on fourth footnote)
• In the paragraph regarding on aircraft being refitted with Merlin engines, explain what "snowguards" are.(Done)

Still more work to go...◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 11:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Air France Flight 447

Toolbox
Automated tips∗ Disambig links External links Alt text Edit count Edit timeline * Further information

This article is very long. My opinion is that it is a very well-written article. With some tweaking (including reorganization, copyediting, expansion, etc), I believe that this article can become an excellent good article candidate. I would like an uninvolved opinion on how this article can be improved further. HeyMid (contribs) 16:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

SteveStrummer

I like this article very much: it's lush with detail and annotation, very nicely done! My modest advice would be to trim the lede section down to a summary level. The three middle paragraphs could be summarized briefly in one, and the info incorporated into the body of the article. On the other hand, the final section ("Media") could be expanded: its two current entries seem unbalanced and not strongly connected. I would suggest converting the bulleted list to concise prose, adding more media topics, and perhaps even spinning off the BBC documentary into a subsection. Good job, SteveStrummer (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mukkakukaku

While I do a lot of work on commercial aviation accidents, I haven't actually worked on this specific article. (My purview is mostly the US.) I suppose I'm about as uninvolved as you can get without not being involved in accidents at all.

You're right, this article is much longer than a standard GA candidate. Then again it hasn't even passed B-class review. I sincerely apologize in advance for the sheer length and nit-pickiness of this review, but in my defense, the article is rather long.

Lead

• The lead should summarize, not introduce new material. Therefore it should not include any references. See WP:LEAD. The GA reviewers love to harp on this.
• Sentences switch between tenses frequently, even within the same paragraph. Ex: "The investigation ... is hampered....", "[t]he search was called off....", and so on.
• Overall, the lead is extremely long and could be pared down some. Of course, the article itself is very long, which means that a good executive summary might need to be longer than usual, but frankly the lead as it is seems to be much too in-depth for some parts (timeline of investigation/search/rescue) and neglects other parts (results of investigation along the lines of legislation, Airworthiness Directives, and so on.)

Aircraft

• Could probably be expanded with information about the pilots and crew — who they were, how many of them were there, and so on.
• This paragraph is extremely dense and seems to overuse the {{convert}} template.

Disappearance

• The originating airport should be wikilinked.

Subsection: Automated messages

• Dates need to have the year. Ex. "An Air France spokesman stated on 3 June 2009...."
• Paragraph 3, which talks about the pitot-static system mentions TCAS. This is the first (and only) appearance of that acronym in the article and it should be spelled out -- Traffic Collision Avoidance System.
• Paragraph 3, mentioned previously, includes a lot of technical jargon that is wikilinked. While it is linked, which is good, it does not at the least mention what any of it means. For example, I have no idea what it means that flight mode switched from normal law to alternate law. I'm sure that if I followed the wikilinks I'd learn, but I should be able to at least understand the gist of it from this article.
  • Addendum: One way to fix the jargon issue would be to indicate what the different subsystems are when they are mentioned. For example, consider the sentence: "Among the ACARS transmissions in the first minute is one message that indicates a fault in the pitot-static system (code 34111506)." One rewrite might read as follows: "Among the ACARS transmissions in the first minute is a message indicating a fault in the pitot-static system, which determines the aircraft's airspeed, Mach number, altitude, and altitude trend." (Yes, I just took the first sentence from the pitot-static system article and used it as an appositive.)
• Paragraph 4, which starts "The remainder of the messages....", contains a lot of information but I ended up thinking, "So what?" A bunch of fault messages were sent, they are described vaguely in the article, and the section ends. What does it mean? I remember reading somewhere else that there was a lot of contention about exactly what some of the messages meant; if I'm not misremembering a different incident, that might be worth including in this section. (Or, at the very least, making it a bit more clear what these "fault" messages mean.)

Subsection: Weather conditions

• For the most part, this section is ok. Except the last sentence, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything else mentioned in that section. I speak of "According to news sources, 12 other flights shared more or less the same route that Flight 447 was using at the time of the accident." This has nothing to do with weather, and should probably be moved elsewhere, possibly Investigation. Also "more or less" is vague and unencyclopedic; try "approximately".

Search and recovery

• This section needs an introduction, and shouldn't just leap into a sub-section. An introduction might include information about what organizations and countries were involved in the search, when the search started, when the search was called off, how many searches there were, if a search was ongoing, how much was actually recovered (bodies, luggage, detritus, etc.) Just basic overview of the subsequent subsections.

Subsection: Search effort

• Once again, dates need years.
• Did the Brazilian Air Force immediately begin their search, at 2:20 UTC on June 1st? Or did they begin later? Ambiguous.
• There's a lot of mention of facts like "Ship A arrived on this date, ship B arrived on this date," and so on, but there's little mention of what those ships actually did, how long they stayed. Tons of ships are involved in search and rescue operations like this; there's no need to mention all of them. Even "notable" ships with articles on Wikipedia need to be mentioned unless they actually make some meaningful contribution. For example, the Caboclo.
• Should probably mention some high level statistics. How many countries, how many ships, how many people, how many planes, how long, how wide an area, and so on. I noticed that the plane disappeared in or near Senegalese air space, but no Senegalese vessels of any kind are mentioned in search efforts. Did they not participate?
• Overlinking: Fernando de Noronha, Air France (previously linked).

Subsection: Search results

• The first two sentences don't seem too be too NPOV to me; consider using the formula "on June 4 the air force announced it had recovered some debris, but the statement was retracted on June 5."
• The dates are funny too on the first two sentences -- June 4 debris "claimed" to be found, June 5 debris found on June 2 is not relevant; ok, so what about the debris on June 4?
• Frankly the first paragraph has no business being the first paragraph. This section needs a good leading paragraph to introduce the search results.
• Avoid the passive voice in the second paragraph. "...it was reported that the Brazilian Air Force had located ..." Reported by who? Better: "... the Brazilian Air Force reported locating ..."
• Why was the debris reportedly found? Was it found or not? If there is any doubt, we need a citation.
• Of the 50 bodies found by 17 June, 49 had been transported to shore. What happened to the last one? This is immediately followed by the sentence "Another body was recovered on 16 June". Is that body from 16 June included in the 17 June number? Or was it 51 by 17 June?
• The 26 June announcement that the body search was finished needs a citation (last sentence, paragraph 5).
• The image is a a color bathymetry relief map of the relevant section of ocean floor, but it is never referenced in the section. Where did this map come from? The note linked from the caption talks about the types of bathymetry used to make this map, but not who made the map. Was it made by a ship involved in the search efforts? Is that why this picture is here? Frankly it seems like way too much emphasis is made on this image and its ambiguous origins rather than the actual image of the recovered stabilizer further down the page.
• Frankly this entire section is a mess. There paragraphs of information with little to no common thread between them. Every announcement is not important.
• Overlinking: Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago, Constituição, Bosísio, Fernando de Noronha (all linked in previous subsection)
• And just a personal peeve: "In November 2010, French officials announced that a fourth search would start in February 2011, using the most sophisticated technology currently available." What were they using previously? substandard technology? (Not really something that needs to be changed; it just seems a poor choice of words.)

Investigation

• This section should, at the least, open with information about who is investigating. What agencies, what countries, and when did these investigations start. It definitely needs an introductory paragraph.
• The sentence stating that the pitot probes are suspected to have contributed to the crash needs a reference.
• The bullet points must' go away. Especially since the sentence says that the French government has started two investigations, and yet there are three bullets. With sub bullets. Really. This is an encyclopedic article, not random data in list form.
• There is a BEA press release quoted in its entirety. I'm not too sure of copyrights related to French government documents, since I'm from the US myself, but this smacks of WP:COPYVIO.
• "The main task currently occupying the investigators ..." Which investigators? The article just finished telling us there are three different French government agencies investigating. Also, this sentence is in present tense, which indicates that this is still the main task of these mystery investigators. I don't know if this is the case, but even so it looks like a good place for WP:AO.
• Some tense switching is evident in this section (present tense/past tense.) The majority of the rest of the article is in past tense, so this section should be changed to comply.
• The list showing the BEA findings could just as easily be written in paragraph form. Frankly, by the looks of it, it used to be in paragraph form and somebody just inserted bullets. I'm not sure which would be better, but this article already has a serious problem with misusing lists.

Airspeed inconsistency

• The wikilink on F-GZCP is a self-reference to a previous section and must be removed. (self reference)
• This section uses a lot of technical terminology and expect the reader to be somewhat familiar with the pivot-pitot system. As I mentioned previously, the casual reader cannot be expected to already know this, and should not have to wander off to another article entirely to learn what is going on, so some overview must be provided in this section of what, say, pitot probes are before haring off to talk about similar incidents involving malfunctioning pitot probes.
• ADIRS is mentioned in this section without ever explaining what the acronym stands for (Air Data Inertial Reference Unit). Since the acronym is never used again in the article, it should only be mentioned by full name here.
• More issues with tenses here. Ex. "The NTSB is investigating....", whereas the rest is past tense.
• This section has a lot of quotations from people that could just as well be summarized.
• Mr. Arslanian is mentioned so many times by name or by quotation it's distracting. Three times within five paragraphs is a bit much. The section is running the risk of violating NPOV.
• "Three similar reports are on file at the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), with two incidents relating to Airbus A330s with flight computer problems, plus one which involved a Boeing 777." The reference of this sentence is a ATSB report from 2008, which makes me think this sentence is original research. The accompanying note, which lists other flights, has no reference, which seems to support this original research hypothesis.
• "In July 2009, Airbus once again advised A330 and A340 operators to change the old Thales pitot probes to newer Goodrich ones." This is the first time the manufacturers of the "faulty" pitot probes are ever mentioned. If they are "once again" advising, then Airbus must have previously advised, so the article should have mentioned this previously.
• Need links: European Aviation Safety Agency, FAA, Airworthiness Directive, Goodrich,

Passengers and crew

• Frankly that chart is an eyesore. Every country should have its own row and be listed alphabetically. Consider the chart in Pan Am Flight 103, section Victims. This will allow the chart to be sortable. And it will be neater in the long run. Done. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 12:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Crew information should probably be mentioned earlier. I think I mentioned this in the Aircraft section above. This way, when they start talking about the pilot by name in the Search section, readers will already have been introduced and know who he is and so on.
• This is not the place to talk about compensation, but I have no idea where else to place it.

Subsection: Notable passengers

• Generally these "notable" sections get a lot of grief, because people start asking what makes this fellow notable but not another fellow. Sometimes it's better to just incorporate these sections into the general fatalities section, but this listing seems to be pretty well thought out.
• Generally speaking, however, a person who is not notable does not have their own Wikipedia biography. So it is therefore generally accepted that unless a person is notable enough to merit such a biography, they are not notable enough to be listed as a "notable" passenger. Keeping this in mind, Mr. Anastacio of Michelin and Ms. Walls need to be removed from the listing.
• Some overlinking -- Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.

Flight number

• It is something of standard operating procedure to change the designation of flights involved in deadly accidents. The fact that it was changed is minor and does not require its own section; the sentence saying that the particular route is now served by Flight 445 can be added to another section, perhaps Aircraft.
• The incident involving the later AF445 flight encountering heavy turbulence and invoking a mayday in the same area that AF447 disappeared is completely in the wrong place. It should, at the least, be moved to the Investigation section. And unless the references specifically make the comparison that 447 disappeared in the vicinity of the severe turbulence, and unless the references themselves actually make the parallel between the flights, the entire incident mention should be removed.
• The changes above make the entire section empty, so it can be removed.

Media

• This smacks of trivia, which should be avoided. (WP:TRIVIA). The bullet-list format does not help matters.
• Frankly this section doesn't even give an overall depiction of media coverage of the event, but rather two documentary/speculation-type shows about the crash. Needs to be either significantly expanded or removed altogether.

See also

• This seems to list a series of (seemingly arbitrary) flights. I say this because I have not followed the links; the listing should be updated to include why the reader should also see this other article. Something along the lines of "Some Airline Flight 9, a similar A330 crash in Some Place, Somewhere on December 1, 1999."

References

• The references need some severe consolidation. For example, this same reference "INFORMATION ON SEARCHES OF THE AIR FRANCE FLIGHT 447". Brazilian Ministry of Defense. 2009-06-10. Retrieved 2009-06-12. seems to be linked four or five separate times.
• There are 10 dead linked references.

External links

• Press releases need better formatting. Title, date issued, language.
• Frankly, external links should be formatted like references. Each listing needs to include who published it, the title, the author, and the publish date (if known).
• The footer templates of "lists relating to aviation" and "lists of aviation accidents and incidents" are not appropriate. This is an article, not a list.

Conclusions
Frankly, this article is a mess, and I say this in the nicest way possible because it is obvious a lot of research went into it. Unfortunately the search and investigation sections look like a mishmash of dates and names. Reading it through the first time, my first thought was, "Did someone just set up a news alert on some international press website and just add information piecemeal as it was reported?"

This problem is especially prevalent in the search section, which frankly reads like a textual timeline. I'm not entirely sure that splitting the section into "efforts" and "results" subsections was the best move; I had a hard time keeping track of who arrived when, from where, and did what. A better alternative might be to split the Search section into sections based on the actual recovery phases -- for example, "Body recovery" and "Flight data recovery."

Also there is a serious problem in this article of overuse or misuse of the {{convert}} template. This template is used when it is necessary to give equivalent measures in another measurement system, for example: 12 feet (3.7 m). In a given article, its use should be consistent. So if you're giving areas in nautical miles and providing the equivalent in square kilometers, you shouldn't have some areas in nautical miles with equivalent square miles and square kilometers. And so on. This template can very easily make an article or section very, very messy, such as the Aircraft section in this article.

If you're really serious about working this article up to GA standards, I have to caution you that this is a momentous task and, by the looks of the talk page (and its archives) you're not going to have an easy time of it. You may want to consider finding a related WikiProject who has an active "Article of the Week/Month" improvement drive and suggesting this as a candidate, because this is, well, crazy big.

Either way, good luck. And if you'd like a second opinion after fixing it up some, do leave me a note on my talk page and I'll do a re-review. (For clarity's sake, however, you might want to consider responding, if you do respond, in a subsequent reply so that my already-messy review doesn't become unreadable.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Link checks

• The link check tools have revealed the following problems:
  • The link to Counterpunch is a disambiguation link and needs to be properly forwarded.
  • The link to Juliana de Aquino redirects back to Air France Flight 447 and is therefore a circular self-reference.
  • The link on the airbus.com site called "Air France Flight AF 447" is dead.
  • The link on marinebuzz.com called "Black Box: Locating Flight Recorder of Air France Flight 447 in Atlantic Ocean" errors out.
  • Plus a lot more dead links. See tool results (takes long to load).
• Also consider the results of the Automated Peer Reviewer Tool

-- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Flight Information Service Officer

Toolbox
Automated tips∗ Disambig links External links Alt text Edit count Edit timeline * Further information

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like this article to eventually obtain GA status, and I'd like your help with comment (or Edits!!!) to improve it.

I am also hoping, with time, to create or improve upon a series of articles on air traffic control related jobs.

Thanks a heap, Philip.t.day (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

C.W.A. Scott

Toolbox
Automated tips∗ Disambig links External links Alt text Edit count Edit timeline * Further information

I've listed this article for peer review because the author has recently expanded the article and is looking toward Class A or GA status. Thanks, Canglesea (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this artical so far? I am the main author of this artical and am hoping to get it up to GA or A class artical status, so if anyone can tell me what they think or have any ideas of where the artical may need improvement, I would be very gratefull for your input, or even just if you agree that it has reached GA or A class quality that would also be great, cheers Jimmy3d0 (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now nominated this article for Good Article status Jimmy3d0 (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Instrument Approach

Toolbox
Automated tips∗ Disambig links External links Alt text Edit count Edit timeline * Further information

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I have been editing the instrument approach article and despite updating factual data and adding references, I have run into a problem with the definition of an instrument approach. If any aviation subject matter experts can help comment on my issue, I would appreciate it greatly!

Of course, the FARs and AIM clearly defines an Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP), but does not define instrument approach; that term says “see IAP,” which defines it as: "A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing or to a point from which a landing may be made visually."

Strictly using that definition would mean that that precision and nonprecision approaches are the only two types of instrument approaches.

However, there is a debate within the aviation community that an instrument approach is any approach that is available to an aircraft operating under an IFR flight plan. This interpretation would permit a third type of approach, the visual approach category, including visual approaches, contact approaches, circle-to-land approaches, side-step approaches, etc. Each of these are (a) only available to IFR flight plans, (b) are often a requirement of nonprecision IAPs (i.e. "alpha approaches") and precision IAPs (ILS approach to runway, then circle-to-land on another).

So my questions:

1. Should these visual approaches be included in the definition of instrument approaches (agreed that they are not IAPs, but are IAs)?
2. If not, how can they be addressed in the current article?
3. If they are addressed in this article, should it be retiled something like "Instrument Flight Rules Approaches," having other approach sites redirect to that new title and/or merging the articles?
4. Any other ideas?

I thought that Instrument Approaches were cut and dry, but by interpretation, it gets complicated!

Thanks, Captjosh (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call myself an "aviation subject matter expert", but I'm going to throw my $.02 worth in anyway...

I think that there is no need to change the IAP definition, nor to open the can of worms about a separate IA definition (nor title change, etc) - since the definition includes the phrase "a point from which a landing may be made visually", it already introduces the concept of visual approaches. Rather than making a definitive statement of whether or not a visual approach is an instrument approach, which can be argued both ways and comes down in the end to opinion, I would think that it makes the most sense to simply cover visual approaches as a separate section under the main article (as opposed to just listed under concepts as it is now).

I personally think that visual approaches are not instrument approaches in the true sense, but rather are relaxations of the rules whereby an IFR flight in VMC may exercise some of the freedom of VFR without having to cancel the IFR. Since they are only available in VMC (or close to it, since strictly speaking a circling approach may be marginal due to airspace designation), they can hardly be called an instrument approach, but rather are more of an instrument transition (i.e. transition from VFR to IFR).

Hope that helps

HiFlyChick (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My instrument ground school said this about instrument approaches when I was prepping for my written exam almost 40 years ago:

Instrument Approach

An approach to an airport for the purpose of landing that is conducted solely by reference to the aircraft's own instruments or by receiving guidance provided from a ground based precision approach radar system in conjunction with the aircraft's own instruments. Once visual contact with the ground is attained, an instrument approach becomes a visual approach.

 Buster40004  Regards, Terry 03:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Snowbird (ornithopter)

Toolbox
Automated tips∗ Disambig links External links Alt text Edit count Edit timeline * Further information

I've listed this article for peer review because: This article may be ready for mainspace. Assistance welcome to review notability and general readiness. Thanks     Eclipsed   (t)     13:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This article was moved to UTIAS Snowbird in mid-November. It has received a fair bit of help also. -fnlayson (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review

Instructions

Requesting a review

To request an A-Class review of an article:

1. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPAVIATION}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
2. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the status of the article.
3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
6. Advertise the review by adding a link at {{WPAVIATION Review alerts}}.

If an article is nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination, or because it may no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be demoted:

1. Move (do not copy) the existing review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
2. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Name of nominated article, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new nomination page).
3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the nomination statement (e.g. "Prior nomination here.").

There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.

Commenting

Reviewers should keep the criteria for featured articles in mind when supporting or opposing a nomination. However, please note that (unlike actual featured articles) A-Class articles are not expected to fully meet all of the criteria; an objection should indicate a substantive problem with the article. In particular, objections over relatively minor issues of writing style or formatting should be avoided at this stage; a comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written article should qualify for A-Class status even if it could use some further copyediting.

Closing and archiving

Reviews will be closed after a sufficient time has elapsed. An article will generally be promoted to A-Class if (a) it has garnered at least three endorsements from uninvolved editors, and (b) there are no substantive objections; a nomination with an isolated objection may pass, however, if that objection is not indicative of a major flaw in the article.

To close a review, coordinators should:

1. Add {{subst:archive top}} and {{subst:archive bottom}} to the top and bottom of the review subpage, respectively.
2. Change the A-Class=current in the {{WPAVIATION}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page to either A-Class=pass (if the nomination is successful) or A-Class=fail (if it is not), and update the assessment class if needed.
3. Move the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} from the list of requests below to the archive page.
4. Remove the article link from the A-Class review list at {{WPAVIATION Review alerts}}.

A-Class requests

Please add new requests below this line

Hughes Airwest Flight 706

After two years of tinkering in a sandbox, the article just passed GA evaluation. I'm hoping to take it up to FA-class, but in the interim I A-class is a good intermediate stop. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 22:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Cochin International Airport

Hi folks, I feel Cochin International Airport if fit for a review for A Class level, as the page has significantly improved with qualitative information, citations, references, encyclopedic content and pictures. I feel the article is fit for an A status. Kindly review it --Arunvarmaother (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The article reads like a brochure or essay rather than an encyclopedic article. The article is filled with lot of unwanted and irrelevant minute details.
Most of the citations are not working or false and majority of the claims are not cited. There are lot of space to improve in grammar, content and credibility.
Even though the article has improved in length, quality is lacking. In short, the article is not yet ready for Class A. -- Induzcreed (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The track-record of above user- Induzcreed is very dubious, as he was interested to vandalize several Kochi related pages and articles. Even in review stage, the above user hasn't mentioned which citations links is missing, which citations are false, which claims he is talking specifically, which is not the style or the format of a review. When determining quality, such as grammar, prose style, the above user hasn't mentioned specifically. If he has specific issues, he must point out, which he failed. A general statement, shows his basic idea in ensuring a good article that goes against his motives and interest, pass review test. On a closer look, Cochin Airport page has one of the highest number of citations which rarely any other similar page have, which proves its validity. I request senior and other individuals, who have experience in reviewing articles to review and consider the article--Arunvarmaother (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I too back Induzcreed in this matter. The article is written much sloapy and puffery. Many claims are not cited. Some cited sources does not actually back the claim made. For instance, a lead sentence "The Cochin airport has been termed as one of the most consistent profitable airport in India despite the major slowdown across the airports in various cities in India" looks like an attempt to boost the airport. None of the citations clearly says anything about CIAL being the most profitable. The fact is that all international airports in India are profitable, and cochin airport is also one of them. But the lead sentence gives the reader a false or confused message. The article length is another concern. So many minute details and silly information are added, which reduces the quality of the article. --Samaleks (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Many sentences reads like a blog entry. For eg; the sentence "It was then, V.J Kurien proposed the model of private-public partnership which was unheard at that time." How the editor arrived at the thought that no one was aware about private-public partnership? Another one : "Though the project received several objections and criticisms for proposing it outside Government of India's control, the strong determination of V.J Kurien, helped it to start." What were the objections and criticisms? Please provide citations. It sounds a little peacock-word for V.J.Kurien; isn't it ? Another example of false claim : "The airport area is under direct protection of Kochi Airport Police having a police station outside the terminal." There is no force called Kochi Airport Police. The internal link is given to "Kochi city police" and is masked with "Kochi Airport Police". If it is the city police that is in charge of the protection, why it should be named as Kochi Airport Police in the article? The sentence could be like "Kochi city police in in charge of the airport protection" as it would be more precise and conveys a clear message; right? There are numerous flaws in the article, and is way far from a Class A status now. I request the editors attached with this article to pitch in to rectify these negetives. --Samaleks (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If you check the citations, you will understand the sentence meaning. I can comment on your first example, The Cochin airport has been termed as one of the most consistent profitable airport in India despite the major slowdown across the airports in various cities in India

The links justifies the claims, especially a few newspaper reports like Hindu etc. In India, only a few airports are profitable. For example even large airports like Hyderabad, New Delhi Airports are in Loss http://www.livemint.com/2010/09/27002625/Hyderabad-airport-seeks-hike-i.html. Only a very few airports are profitable, say Chennai, Mumbai, Cochin etc. Cochin Airport recorded consistent profits since 2002, and profit percentages only soar even in recession, instead of decline. The statement is CIAL is ONE OF THE PROFITABLE, not the ONLY PROFITABLE. So that justifies the claim.

Regarding VJ Kurien, the PDF citations along with CIAL's website citations quotes, that it was his determination that made the airport. An Interview with him in a respectable website like Rediff is given, to show the extent of determination and troubles which he faced to start the airport. So it due respect must be given to its founder director. The level of criticisms were mentioned in that PDF citation, made as a case study for Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad, an authority in this area. CIAL was the first case of PPP model in India, as there were no Public-Private partnership models prior to 1997. So its naturally unheard in the country.

Finally, there is not police called airport police, but definetly has a police station called Airport Police Station, established for external security. http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/20/stories/2008102058250300.htm. Do you think, what name should we give to a police force operating inside an airport, other than airport police?

I thank for your suggestions, but must consider the extent of citations given and must go through it in detail, rather looking things superficial.--Arunvarmaother (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not here for an argument. I just shared my thoughts, thats all. You have done a really great job in expanding the article. Many details are added, and arranged in a good manner. But I feel that as a whole, the article needs further improvement. I am sure that you can do that. Please attend to the points I made earlier. I feel that it is not addressed, but justified here. For eg; I still feel that masking the airport police is not accurate. The sentence can be rewritten as "Kochi city police in in charge of the airport protection" as it would be more precise and conveys a clear message. This is just one example. Thanks a lot, --Samaleks (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Several paragraphs in the article read just like an advertisement. Who has written them that way? It is the nom - Arunvarmaother. He had added several unwanted/repeated images to the article (which are deleted from wiki now). He used to add info just based on his thoughts, does not want to believe in facts. Even some of the citations that he provided were either outdated or out-of-context. This issue was raised several times by the user Induzcreed, and Mr Arunvarmaother considers the former to be vandalising the article. There is a clear violation of NPOV in the article apart from it being written like an advertisement. Until the entire article is re-written to meet wikipedia standards, I do not think this article would qualify for an A-class status. I am not against the article, but once it is re-written to meet wikipedia standards, I would definitely support the cause for it to get an A-Class stats. Until then, sorry. --Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Out of curiosity, wouldn't it make more sense to get the article to GA class, or even B class, before attempting an A-class review? Frankly, just looking at the article I could already tell you that it would fail GA review for not adhering to WP:LEAD. (At the very least, leads should summarize, not introduce new information, so there should not be any references in it.) Additionally there are entire paragraphs with no citation -- see first paragraph section Management, first paragraph section Expansion, last paragraph section Construction, and so on. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 13:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Arado Ar E.381

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Combustor

Now that the article has gotten through a pretty thorough peer review that added some useful content, I’d like to get this article promoted to A-class. All modesty aside, I think it is the best written, best cited, "component" article in the Aviation project, and I think improving it to the A-class level would help set a clear standard for these types of articles (which we need to do better on as a wikiproject, IMO). I think the article is close to A level, and I’m looking forward to bridging that final gap with your help. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Support: Looks like a fine article. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As had been said previously, the article is superb. Just one thing I'd like to add is that you might want to consider putting the ISBN number on the references which I assume are from a book. Otherwise, on first read its a very good article. Hope this helps, Plane Person (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for your comments. If you look in the Bibliography section, below the references, the full citations with ISBNs are spelled out. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, didn't see the bibliography. Personally I can't see anything wrong with the article now to stop it gaining an A-Class award but I'm not very experianced and I don't know fully the specific A-Class criteria. Plane Person (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

I have had a look at the article in the past and recently and made a few minor corrections (not all of which were retained) and must say it is a very good article. However there may be some confusion with combustor in the incinerator sense. Some method of disambiguation may be required like-

Combustor (continuous combustion engines)

something like that. Just a thoughtPetebutt (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but is there an article on wikipedia for that other type of combustor already? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This review needs more input or be closed out in some manner. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War

Article passed a peer-preview a year ago, contains 150+ references, a good lead, etc. and I believe that it meets all the requirements for A-class. Maybe it needs some work in expanding the introduction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Comments

• The quote in the lead from Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt should be trimmed to remove the number of helicoptors lost in Iraq and Afganistan. Including that number confuses the reader because it is out of date and covers both theaters, not just Iraq (which is the focus of the list). I suggest "In March 2007, Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt said that he was concerned that helicoptors lost in Iraq and Afganistan were not being replaced fast enough."

Some editors asked for official sources that show the number of shootdowns. I think this gives us an estimate for the situation back in 2007. I'll try to find another source. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Any luck finding another source? Or maybe one that speaks to only the Iraq theater? If you can't find a more recent one, I suggest wording something like "By March 2007, U.S. Army officials had said that at least 130 helicoptors had been shot down". Honestly, that may not be any better. I understand the desire to have an official source for some number but if the official source confuses the count used in the article I think it does more harm than good. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything more recent. Most of the links use out list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This one discusses only shootdowns and not accidents, I think. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, until something better comes along, what's there will do. It's not a deal breaker. -SidewinderX (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• The V-22 sentence in the lead makes claims that are not supported by the source. Either find a source for the claims, or remove them. IMO, just replace them with the statements from the source, which all support the V-22 as an improvement over existing helicoptors. The sentence, as written, claims that it is no better or even more vulenerable. ✓ Done
• The lead should mention that the list does not include unmanned aircraft of any type. (Or perhaps the article should be moved to List of manned aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War?) ✓ Done
• "The change of tactics of the US Army resulted in reducing the number of shootdowns." This claim comes from a seemingly off-hand comment in the last line of the source, which doesn't actually say anything about a change in tactics (only "precautions"), and doesn't specify the US Army (on "military"). I suggest that the line is just removed, it doesn't add much IMO.

We have to comment the reduce of the shootdowns in the last years somehow. I 've no idea how. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Maybe try and directly paraphrase the article more closely (mention the decline in violence and precuations... I guess tactics is an acceptable subsititute for "precautions" -SidewinderX (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done 22:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• It seems like the style here is to link the aircraft in each instance, which I agree with. I noticed a few that weren't wikilinked, scan through again to make sure everything that needs to be wikilinked is wikilinked. ✓ Done
• Maybe wikilink aircraft names in the table at the bottom? ✓ Done
• Scan through again and make sure that tense is being used constantly (seems like present is the choice of the article, fine IMO) ✓ Done

Looks like you're almost there! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I ll do some today but my iinternet access is a bit limited till April. I ll do most of the stuff in 2 weeks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I did the best I could. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Magioladitis has put plenty of work into this article... Support! -SidewinderX (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Nice work! I do have a couple of issues that should be addressed though:
  • Helicopters, 2008: The IqAF no longer uses the "triangle eight" (if I may coin a phrase?) roundel. The only 'roundel' used now is the national flag. Changing this would probably be a good idea (as in the 2005 Comp Air crash, which shows the correct 'roundel'.) ✓ Done
  • Helicopters, 2006: May 27 AH-1W crash is unreferenced. ✓ Done
  • Helicopters, 2005: Referencing of December 26 AH-64D collision is unclear. August 30 OH-58 crash unreferenced. ✓ Done
  • Helicopters, 2004: September 4 "Kiowa Down" incident unreferenced. August 11 CH-53E crash unreferenced. April 11 AH-64D shootdown unreferenced. April 7 OH-58 shootdown unreferenced. January 13 AH-64 shootdown unreferenced. ✓ Done
  • Helicopters, 2003: October 13 OH-58 crash unreferenced. August 28 CH-47 writeoff unreferenced. Destruction of March 23rd AH-64D writeoff unreferenced. ✓ Done

**Fixed-wing aircraft, 2008: November 28 C-23 accident unreferenced. ✓ Done

• • Fixed-wing aircraft, 2003: April 7 F-15E crash unreferenced. ✓ Done

Fixing these up should be the only work needed. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Done all! -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. Nice work. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • No source is provided for the statement that "At least 278 personnel have been killed in helicopter crashes since the invasion, and 19 have died in fixed-wing crashes."

It's based on the counting from the data given in the lists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that the casualty figures reported in all of those news stories turned out to be accurate? The figure could potentially be lower if any of the stories over stated the number of casualties. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • The mention of Operation Desert Badger in the lead seems out of place given that this article covers operations during the Iraq War

What do you think we have to do about it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove it - it's irrelevant to the topic of this article Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• • The 'Summary per type' and 'Summary per year' are sourced to the article, and not an external reliable source. As a result, these figures may not include all loses.

There are all double-checked by the links given in the External links section. No link covers the whole period of 7 years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that most of those references don't appear to be reliable sources that doesn't really address my concern I'm afraid. Moreover, given that the news stories were generally written at the time of the shootdown or accident, how do you know that none of the aircraft were later assessed as being repairable and repaired (the tables are claimed to be 'losses') or that none of the media releases and news stories miss-identified the aircraft? (which is hardly uncommon). Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • There's some inconsistency with how military units are named (eg, "2nd Squadron, 6th Cavalry Regiment, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, 25th Infantry Division" and 2-6 CAV both appear; I'd suggest using the first option as it's clearer to people who aren't familiar with US military abbreviations. 'CAV' and 'Cav' and 'AVN' and 'Avn' both also appear)
    • • ✓ Done Renamed all Avn to Aviation Brigade and Cav to Cavalry Regiment. there were 15-20 of them in total. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Are there any more that I should rename/fix? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is a book about an incident which occurred in the 1990s listed as being 'further reading' for this article on losses which occurred from 2003 onwards?

Because this books refers to many incidents happened after 2003. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Several of the external links don't appear to be reliable sources or add any value beyond what's in the article

Example? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.jjraymond.com/political/articles/helicopters112004.html (seems to be someone's personal blog), http://www.water-revolution.org/iraqheli.html (dead link and not a very likely source judging from the URL, http://www.pom-tom.de/Losses_OIF_dat2006.html (what makes this reliable?), http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL0790850820070208 (reliable, but contains nothing that's not already in the article) Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • The entries need to be checked for inaccuracies such as "An AH-1W SuperCobra 165321 from HMLA-369 shot down near Ramadi, killing the two pilots" - SuperCobras are crewed by a pilot and a pilot/gunner. There are a number of other entries claiming that these helicopters and Kiowas have two 'pilots'

    Comment: The crew for these aircraft is two qualified pilots. One pilot occupies the gunner position. In the Kiowa Warrior, the left-seat pilot sits in the copilot/gunner (CPG) position; However, it is the pilot in the right-seat, referred to as the pilot, who fires the weapons.--Born2flie (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  • There are a number of problems with references:
    • Is http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1992.html (and other pages from this website) a reliable source?
    • A page number is needed for ref 155 "MG Thurman Testimony"
      • ✓ Done Magioladitis (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Ref 182 ("Operation Iraqi Freedom") is a dead link

Tagged as dead link. I 'll try to find an active one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • A number of references are missing access dates Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Which ones? I checked almost all and I found none. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Refs 38, 57 (used multiple times), 64, 65, 78, 79, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89, etc. There are quite a lot. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Working on them right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Added accessdates to all links. Updated 1-2 links. Found 1 dead-link. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed every issue came up. Anything else is has to be done? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The article still contains an unreferenced statement about total casualties, and unreferenced summary tables. The aircraft types are also greatly over-linked. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates

Instructions

Featured article candidates are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate an article for featured article status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the official instructions.

Featured article review

Instructions

Featured article reviews are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured article review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.

Non-article featured content candidates

Instructions

Non-article featured content candidates are controlled by one of several external processes, depending on the type of content; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate something for featured status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the appropriate official instructions:

• For lists: featured list candidates
• For portals: featured portal candidates
• For topics: featured topic candidates