Talk:Imperial Airlines Flight 201/8/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

A few comments:
 * Aviod using abbreviations the first time, also common ones like US and EST. The latter is widely known in the United States, but most people in Europe/other countries do not know what it means.
 * En-dashes are not to be spaced, per the MOS.
 * I've changed U.S. to American in one instance; it is better to not use abbreviations (though this is not a hard rule and some might disagree).
 * Job titles are only capitalized if they come in front of the persons name ("Chief Engineer Smith...", but "Smith is chief engineer").
 * Don't need to include ICAO codes for the airports, and they definitively should not be bold.
 * Avoid forcing images sizes. The default value is chosen for a reason, and people of varying screen sizes or of accessibility reasons may want to override what you like. However, you can make maps and the first image larger (up to 300px).
 * "Civil Aeronautics Board" is linked many times. Once is enough. Also, don't keep changing between the abbreviation and the full name. If you want to use the abbreviation, use it thoughout the article (except the first instance, where the abbreviation is in parenthesis behind).
 * There are too many short paragraphs. One-sentence paragraphs are never allowed, and they should be in average almost twice their current typical length (although the exact nature of this is part of the author's freedom).
 * The first block quote is fine, but the second is too short for block quotes and should be in-line. Optionally, this could be made a pull quote by using cquote, if you feel this is the essense of the article, particularly in lieu of the above quote. I moved it in-line, but I guess you are free to make it a pull quote if you want.
 * I think it is reasonable to presume that entities such as 'Congress' are referring to the US's.
 * References (or notes if you will), then "see also", then "external links".
 * You state Air Tahoma Flight 185 under "see also", but don't explain why the two are related. The best solution would be to incorporate it into the text, but otherwise it has to be explained why they are related.

Concerning references:
 * The two first paragraphs in the section "crew" are not referenced, or are all three paragraphs the same ref? In which case, it would be nice to have the ref for each paragraph. I could under doubt agree that stating that a Constellation not need a reference for it having a crew of three, but it would be nice to have if it is stated in the CAB source.
 * Similarly in the second paragraph of "flight history" (okay, perhaps I merged that into another paragraph).
 * Personally, I would use |work=newspaper and |agency=UPI (both with links) in the references, but I honestly don't know what is supposed to be done, so I'll let it pass. Nice that you use proper cite templates.

Looks pretty good. Just some small stuff about referencing lacking, and otherwise I fixed the copyediting stuff. If you continue like this, and manage to implement the tips from above, I think you're ready to mass-produce GAs. Once the stuff has been seen to, I'll pass the article. Good work :) Arsenikk (talk)  14:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all your work and comments. I added the extra reference footnotes per your suggestion. I moved the 'See also' to above the 'Reference' section, as per most FAs I checked, all my other articles, as well the layout guideline. I added the relevance for the other accident in the See also section. I put the 'Probable cause' statement in blockquotes because pull quotes are frowned upon per MOS for critical quotes, and the probable cause is the key for the entire article (and in general I prefer it to remain professional and low key, despite its importance). This is the style I use for my other aviation accidents on WP, including GAs and FA, and I'd like them to be consistent if possible. I accept all your other changes. Thank you again for your quick review and the constructive changes. It's refreshing to see someone who actually rolls up his sleeves and does the work, as opposed to criticizing. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations with a good article. Sorry about the order of 'see also', I though I knew the MOS by heart, but I had mixed it up. Otherwise excellent article. Hope to see similar articles at GA soon ;) Arsenikk (talk)  12:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)