Talk:Widerøe Flight 933

Widerøe Flight 933 was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 16, 2013). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

Aviation: Accidents

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Widerøe Flight 933/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

Sorry, it has taken longer than I expected to get to this point. I've now done a quick read of the article and it appears to be at or above GA-level, but I've not reviewed the article against WP:WIAGA in sufficient depth to award GA-status without further work.

I'm going to work my way down the article from the Flight section to the end, and then I'll do the WP:Lead. However, I might not complete this review in the next two days, but I'll need to stop then until 27th April, as I'll be on holiday, in the North Sea and in Norway, without access to the web. Pyrotec (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flight -

This section appears to be compliant.

Cause -

...stopping at this point. To be continued, tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Norwegian is too weak to allow me to translate ref 10 by hand, so I used google translate. If google is right, I would suggest an amendment to the existing text: "Prior to the accident there were cracks in the aircraft in the .....", to make it read: " Investigation of the wreckage showed that prior to the accident there were cracks in the aircraft in the ......".

I'm happy to consider alternative proposals.

Looks good. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have another comment in the case of the statement "...... this would allow the port elevator to move freely, but the pilots would still retain half altitude control." If google is right, I would suggest a better way might be to put "...... this would allow the port elevator to move freely, but the pilots would still retain approximately half of their altitude control."

I'm happy to consider alternative proposals.

Another editor has changed "altitude control" to "attitude control", perhaps that was the intended expression? Pyrotec (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased. I honestly don't know if altitude or attitude is correct (I am no pilot or aviation engineer) and my dictionary is at loss when it comes to technical terms at this level. But it seems that attitude control is correct. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this section is compliant.

Military activity -

Would it be possible to provide some significance of the "150 kilometers (93 mi) into the no-fly zone" (possibly just as a Note)? However, I'm not asking for Original Research.

For example: looking at Sea Harrier, their maximum speed is given as 1,182 km/h, so at maximum speed that is about eight minutes flying time beyond their permitted zone.

I've added that Andøya is "comparatively close" to Vestfjorden, indicating that the zone is in range of the Harriers. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this section is compliant.

Investigations -
- First investigation -

This subsection appears to be compliant.

- Second investigation -

This subsection appears to be compliant.

- Third investigation -

I think that the final paragraph of this section should be referenced by "Parliament: 24" & "Parliament: 25", can you check this?

The issue is discussed in section 1.2.3, which is exclusively on page 24, so I believe it is fine. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...stopping at this point. To be continued, tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the sentence "AIBN concluded that there were no hold in the claims.", the word "hold" seems to be wrong.

Fixed. I sometimes wish Norwegian and English weren't so similar, so I wouldn't mix up regular terms between them. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary investigation -
- Untitled first subsection -

I suspect that the word "sent" in "On 19 November 2002 NRK's documentary series Brennpunkt sent the episode "Vanskelige vitner" ("Difficult Witnesses")." would read better in English if it were replaced with "showed" or "broadcast".

Agreed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also suspect, on the basis of "Parliament, 15" that Per Gravel in the sentence "It included an interview with former Lieutenant Colonel Per Gravel, in charge of CRC Sørreisa...." should be Per Gavin, as that reference refers to "fortalte pensjonert oberstløytnant Per Gavin"

Check. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this subsection is compliant.

- Interviews and analysis -

This subsection appears to be compliant.

- Reaction -

The first paragraph refers to "Steinhold", but I can't find any other mention of this name / person in the article. Y. Having checked the citation, I changed it to Steinholt", on the basis that it was probably a typo. Pyrotec (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, I regard this subsection as being compliant.

WP:Lead -

The lead needs a bit more detail, as I do not regard it as adequately summarising the first investigation. In particular:

May be, the first paragraph could be expanded to summarise - first investigation was carried out by a military commission, it started (I believe) soon after the crash and reported its findings on 20 July 1984. The direct cause of the accident is presumed to be the collapse of the vertical stabilizer and the rudder or "vital parts of the vertical stabilizer had collapsed because of overload while still airborne ... making further control of the aircraft impossible".

When I read the lead today I had the same thought, and I've attempted to restructure the content, focusing less on the conspiracy aspect. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm putting the review "On Hold", there are a few minor corrections / clarifications / additions that need to be made, or if not discussed and agreed here. After that I would expect to be able to award the article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this review as the nominator has been inactive on wikipedia, apart from one edit on 28 March, since 22 March 2013. The article is close to being a GA, and I would suggest that the nominator should consider my comments above and renominate the article after due consideration. Pyrotec (talk)
- I have fixed all the issues (and made some additional minor corrections). Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caption on photo inconsistent with text[edit]

Just a passing note to point out an inconsistency. The text states the aircraft was manufactured in 1977, yet the photograph of the aircraft is captioned "The accident aircraft, 1970". Something is not right. 86.18.162.59 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]