Jump to content

Talk:BOAC Flight 712

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.161.151.190 (talk) at 13:37, 8 April 2012 (→How on earth can this be a good article....: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleBOAC Flight 712 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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
DateProcessResult
March 19, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
April 30, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 19, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the only peacetime George Cross won by a woman was awarded to Barbara Jane Harrison as a result of her actions during the fire on board BOAC Flight 712 in 1968?
Current status: Good article

Citations

Being under 50 years old, the citations are still covered by Crown Copyright, so we probably shouldn't include them in full. David Underdown (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a read, and having done so I've added refs and indicated the cititions are Crown Copyright. They are accurately reproduced (which is why they have to be in full) and not used in a misleading way, so we should be covered. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem we can't guarantee how they would be used in a derivative work, which is allowed under the gfdl used by Wikipedia, but could fall foul of those restrictions in Crown Copyright. David Underdown (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about non-free images? Surely that's the same case. The website has to be responsible for complying with copyright rules for any non-free content, same as Wikipedia is for its own. That is not Wikipedia's concern. Mjroots (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to simplify the process and reduce unnecessary administration and delay for re-users of Crown copyright material, extracts of up to 250 words from official sources may be re-used without the need to apply for a licence. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed that, so we should be OK then - I think we can justifiably claim that they are two separate extracts, despite being from the same Gazette. David Underdown (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:BOAC Flight 712/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 11:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status:

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    File:G-ARWE-1.jpg does not have a complete fair use rationale. Needs to be scaled down also.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Good Luck improving! Remember You can renominate when you are done fixing.


To Work On list (specifics)

  • Augmented in Sec 1, please define (Criterion 1A)
 Done Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Cross Database, Dead link, replace or remove (Citerion 2B)
 Done Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aeromoe" Geosites source, fails reliability & unable to understand, remove/resource (Citerion 2A&B)
 Done Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large Unsourced sections (1-5). Step by step explanation that does have sources. (Criterion 2C)
Not sure. All text is referenced. Where a para has only 1 ref, all text is from that source. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: The sections are covered all by one source. Would like to see some kind of second source to verify the information. I assume that when you footnote the whole paragraph that you are citing the whole paragraph? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sections are all covered by one source because that source (Aeroplane) was the source I used to expand the article. At the time I did not have Ottaway's book. Your assumption is correct. AFAIK, 1 ref per para is acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Now understand. Clarified. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not cover actions from air traffic control. (Criterion 3A)
Not sure - ATC coverage is sparse in sources. I'll re-read Susan Ottaway's book and see if I can expand coverage here. Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there is a small section of ATC, it would be better than nothing. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done More added about ATC's role. I don't think it could be a separate section as it is too interwoven into the flight of the aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st image does not fully explain the status of the aircraft. You could put "Engine falling from Flight 712 over ___". (Criterion 6B & 1A MOS 17.2 "Formatting of captions")
 Done Caption expanded Mjroots (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead Wikilinks (Criterion 1B)
 Done All wikilinks external links now live Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did mean external links, didn't you? A dead wikilink is a redlink, isn't it? Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Sorry meant redlink. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've removed two of the redlinks. I don't think that either really adds to the article per WP:REDLINK, although I have no objection to them being linked if an article were to be created. Katriel Katz meets WP:BIO, and the redlink there is a valid one. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please do not change the status of the criterion, the reviewer will change that their selfs.

Looks all good now. I don't re-review like this because I often miss something and it goes for reassessment or needs fixing. Sorry. ---- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

The GAN has a fail against "No original research". In which area do you think that there is OR in the article? Mjroots (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It was the above stuff. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file mentioned above as not having a complete NFU rationale and needing resizing. I don't see where either of these apply. The photo appears in Ottaway's book, but isn't attributed. Its size at 200x409 px is small enough. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Working -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about the resize. But the Fair Use Rational needs to be detailed per GA Criteria. See WP:RAT. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the FURs of all three fair use images. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:BOAC Flight 712/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, take II. Let me read the article, the first review, and I'll let you hear my comments. Courcelles (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • General comment, the lede could do with some expansion. An article of this length could do with two full paragraphs of prose at the top.
 Done Lede expanded. Mjroots (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 8: "Federal Aviation Authority." I think the last word is administration, not authority. (I know it is these days, and I think it always has been)
  • Three NFCC images. The FUR's of the first two are entirely logical, but I do wonder if the "Barbara Jane Harrison" one is truly necessary here.
  • Ref 17 needs filling out to include author and pub. date, both of which are in the source.
  • We could use some more details; how much longer is 27L than 05L? The article makes the selection of runway sound like a big deal, but some hard numbers would help. (Also, if memory serves, there is no 05R anymore at LHR?) I think both are now designated as 9/27, and have since been lengthened.
I've managed to find a ref for the length of 28 in 1968, before it was lengthened and renumbered in the early 1970s. Still looking for ref for 05R. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ref found for length of 05R and added to article. Mjroots (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article needs a general copyedit for redundancies. One example, under "Passengers" there is "Mark Wynter, pop singer was a passenger on Flight 712." Where he is mentioned in the article implies that he was a passenger, so repeating it isn't necessary.
  • Could the salvage and aircraft involved sections be consolidated?
  • "The Queen awarded Barbara Jane Harrison a posthumous George Cross (GC), the only GC ever presented to a woman in peacetime." Citation? Further, "Harrison is the youngest ever female recipient of the George Cross.[15]" This sentence should be back where Harrison is discussed, I think.
  • Not sure. The awards section is about the awards given in connection with the accident, not just BJH's GC. Being the higher award, it is discussed first, but there was also Davis-Gordon's BEM and Davis's MBE. For that reason, I'm opposed to the breakup of this section. If and when I can get a citation for Davis's MBE, that will be added. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about rearranging that paragraph only, not the entire article. That paragraph has a sentence about Harrison, one about Gordon, another about Harrison, one about John Davis, and then one more about Harrison. I think all three about Harrison should be in order, then discuss Gordon and Davis. Courcelles (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the images have alt text
  • Two Disambig links: "G-ARWE (c/n 18373)" c/n links to MSN (disambiguation), which I understand. Any chance witionary has a real article on the concept? Also "Mayday" links to a disambig page.
  • Could the book section be integrated into the aftermath? It just seems a little short for a level two header.
  • Ref 3 needs to be reformatted
Oops. That's an actual template for citing that website. I forgot to look at the source, and just saw it as a not fully filled-out cite web template. Sorry. Courcelles (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I have for now, but I like to come back and do a second read-through at another session, so more may jump out at me later. Courcelles (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments. Good work expanding the lede, however, where is it documented that the presence of the check captain caused distractions?
 Fixed per the official report detailed in Ottaway's book. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Barbarajaneharrison.jpg again. WP:NFCC requires ten things be met, two of which are, in my mind, troublesome in this article. Criterion 10 requires that the copyright holder be identified if possible. In this case, the link where the image came from is dead. Further, I'm not convinced it meets criterion 8; that seeing her face in this article really enhances readers' understanding.
Link works for me. Copyright holder in this case is unknown, probably Harrison's family. I've removed the image, not worth getting into an argument over. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes [1] a reliable source? They appear to be focused on selling hotel rooms.

Courcelles (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC) :Source seemed OK to me, but I've changed it to VC10.net, the same as the other runway length source (05R). Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to revert back to the original source for now as other sources tried all show the extended runway length post October 1968. Agree that main focus of that website is selling hotel rooms, but it does give some useful history of LHR. I'll try and find a better source for this info if I can. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity

Likely relevant to the GA review, I'd like to point out that the article mentions Captain Cliff Taylor and Steward Bryan Taylor in the People involved section, but earlier only refers to either of them only by surname, which may cause confusion (the latter is mentioned in the second paragraph of the Fire section without introduction). --Paul_012 (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hadn't realised there were two crew with same surname. It should now be clear in that para as to which Taylor is meant. Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion from HJ Mitchell

Courcelles asked me to chip in here, so I'll make a few observations:

  • The lead could still use padding out since it's a summary, not an introduction
  • The background section is very short and doesn't provide much background- could it be incorporated into the next section?
  • What timezone are we in? GMT or BST?
  • "Seconds after take off from Heathrow's then 9,000 feet (2,700 m) long runway 28L (now 27L),[2] there was an unexpected bang and the aircraft started vibrating."
    • How many seconds? Can the runway stats go somewhere else, they confuse the flow
    • Nowhere is it explained where or what Heathrow is
    • Not so, it is adequately explained in the infobox. As one of the world's busiest airports, it should be common knowledge what Heathrow is. See WP:OVERLINK
    • Yes, what I mean is that it's not explained that it's the 2nd busiest airport in the world or that it's in south-eastern England on the M4 corridor just outside London. A little detail can provide a lot of context- just how much, I'll leave to you. Anything else I can do for you? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do people expect bangs?
  • MBE should be piped to Member of the Order of The British Empire, to provide context to those hovering over the link
  • It needs a copyedit- not just a technical copyedit but a proper audit of grammar and prose
  • The aftermath section is relatively short and probably doesn't need to be split into 3 subsections
  • There is no mention of the awards between the lead and the awards section- surely what they did to earn them is relevant to the incident
  • Likewise with aircraft- if you need a detailed section, fine, but it is worth mentioning in the section about the incident
  • The honours should be linked in the awards section
  • "The Queen" needs more context- Queen Elizabeth II would be sufficient
  • It would be tidier to use a shorthand for the book and give the full details in a bibliography
  • The fair-use rationales for File:G-ARWE-2.jpg and File:G-ARWE-1.jpg feel very generic and boilerplate- you need to explain why they are important to the article based around the WP:NFCC, especially 2, 3 and 8

The article is not in bad shape, but it needs to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to deal with the style issues. The content seems very good to me and the article is logically ordered, though some of the information that has specific sections would be valid elsewhere as well. I would also question the reliability of some the sources, but that will have to wait for a less stupid hour, I'm afraid. Questions/comments/clarifications are welcome here and/or on my talk page and I'll check back at a more sensible hour! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HJ, for taking a look, and I must say I agree with all of your points. (Explaining Heathrow would never have occurred to me, but that may be because between terminals 3 and 5 (and 4 before BA moved out) I've wasted too many days there.) Ottaway's book is cited in the references, so I also wonder if the full bibliographic details are necessary up in the article's content, but I'm not concerned either way. HJ's point about bypassing the MBE redirect also applies to BOAC in the lede; a link to British Overseas Airways Corporation adds context for those who don't remember a time before British Airways! (I promise I haven't forgotten about this article, and will come abck to give it some serious time tomorrow.) Courcelles (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BOAC now spelled out in full in ibx and lede. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've not forgotten either, just been busy with a few other current events in las few days. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If either of you need anything, I'm around and I've got this watchlisted, so just ask! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping this up

I'm ready to pass this- while it would still need a fair bit of work before a potential FAC, the improvements over the last month are enough to pass the GAC. Since HJ has been involved, I'd like for him to indicate if he concurs before I formally pass this, though. Courcelles (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With us both in agreement, congratulations. Passed. I'll go do the paperwork. Courcelles (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distraction unproven

The opening alleges the presence of the check captain created a distraction which contributed to the sequence of failures: "Confusion over checklists and distractions from the presence of a check captain led to a major fire that killed five of the 127 on board after the aircraft had made a safe emergency landing."

It appears there is no data in the balance of the article to support this allegation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.182.43 (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh : Witnessed damaged aircraft in flight

I read an article about this once and it mentioned that Prince Phillip had witnessed the plane in distress from his study in Windsor Castle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.14.226 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, he wrote the foreword to "Fire Over Heathrow" and confirms it there. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth can this be a good article....

when there are statements in sentences like this:

Confusion over checklists and distractions from the presence of a check captain led to a major fire that killed five of the 127 on board after the aircraft had made a safe emergency landing.

  1. I assume the sentence is saying that a fire started after an emergency landing. Then why not state that immediately.
  2. The fire began because of "confusion over checklists" and "distractions from the presence of a check captain ", what on earth does that mean in plain english?
  3. what is a "check captain"?

Not only is the statement written in a passive voice but it uses confusing terminology.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BOAC_Flight_712&oldid=486255183"