Talk:Vnukovo Airlines Flight 2801/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have concluded my initial review. This is a decent article that has a few problems, and one potentially major aspect of the story may not have been covered. I will hold this article for up to a week to allow time for these issues to be fixed. Aaron north (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a minor coverage question on possible unknown changes in procedure implemented by Russia after the cause was determined, but I am going to accept that this is nearly impossible to find. Everything else looks good now. Aaron north (T/C) 17:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to summarize the article. I see no mention of the investigation or aftermath in the lead.

This sentence is a bit of a mess, beginning and end: (The crew showed a lack of situational awareness following the following their uncertainty of the aircrafts position in relation to LLZ 28, caused by seemingly indications on the HSIs.) I would correct it myself, but I'm not exactly sure what was intended.

This sentence also needs to be cleaned up: (By 1998, a few of the relatives had accepted the US$20,000 compensation, while the rest of the were going to sue both the airline's insurance company and Arktikugol.) There's probably a typo in there somewhere, and "were going to sue" is a bit informal. Maybe planned to sue? decided to sue?

One major aspect of all airline crash stories, after the lawsuits have been settled and the cause determined, is what changes in airline equipment, maintenance practice, and procedure were recommended by the airline regulators, and if some or all of those recommendations were implemented. In this case, it looks like pure pilot error from Russia. Are there any sources indicating what changes were recommended and/or implemented (procedures, pilot training, etc) to prevent a reoccurance?

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nothing really comes to mind.

Thank you for taking the time to conduct the review. I've fixed the prose-issues and added some lines in the lead. Regarding your fourth bullet point, I have not been able to identify any such changes. There is no mention of this in the accident report or in Norwegian or international news archives. As I do not speak a word of Russian, there could exist such documentation online or offline in Russian sources, but that would be excessively difficult to find. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making an effort to look for it. Given that it is Russia, and the language barrier, it isn't hard to believe that this information is difficult to find. Aaron north (T/C) 17:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]