Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 satellite communications/GA1

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

Reviewer: Winner 42 (talk · contribs) 16:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Overall Comments
Placing under review. Winner 42 Talk to me!  16:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please read the note on the talk page about WP:Technical and how I've tried to make this an understandable article. Also, article is up-to-date...the last major development occurred in October 2014 and I have added a few things from March and July of this year into the "Other analyses" and "Timeline" sections. While certainly not required in a good article review, I would like to get this to Featured Article soon and would greatly appreciate any feedback for further improvements. Thank you for picking up this (very old) GAN! AHeneen (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem, this article looks very solid from a quick glance and it looks like you have put a lot of effort into it. I'll give feedback when possible. Due to the length this review will probably take me a few hours (but it is totally worth it for a 25 point review in the GA Cup ;) ). Winner 42 Talk to me!  17:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Placing on hold. Winner 42 Talk to me!  22:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No dab links
 * No copyright violations
 * 4 dead links are present
 * Article is inconsistent in its usage of national varieties of English
 * Per MOS:NUM you should put non-breaking spaces between numbers and units of measurement
 * Oxford comma usage is inconsistent

Sectional Analysis

 * Lead
 * departed its planned -> departed from its planned
 * This lead is in an interesting spot where it could be expanded further to summarize more information (such as the other analyses section), but is already very long as it is so I'll leave it to your editorial decision making


 * Background
 * It is somewhat confusing with a non standardize format for times in the first section. I would recommend something like "LOCAL TIME (UTC TIME)" and stick to that format or similar. For example it is unclear if 7:24, Malaysia Airlines is UTC or local time.
 * It is also unclear if the local times given are AM or PM or 24 hour.
 * The data/messages from the aircraft are transmitted by the aircraft's Satellite Data Unit (SDU; alternatively "aircraft terminal" or "aircraft earth station", with respect to the network) and relayed via satellite to a ground station ("Ground Earth Station" with respect to the network), where they are routed to other communication networks to reach their destination Could this sentence be more concise or spilt? They are a lot of technical clauses and concepts in it.
 * Do we have an article that covers SATCOM? If so it could use a wikilink.
 * The aircraft was equipped with four emergency locator transmitters (ELTs): a fixed ELT on the aft fuselage (activated by sudden deceleration), a portable ELT in a cabinet located in the front of the aircraft (must be activated by moving a switch), and two ELTs attached to slide rafts (armed when the rafts are inflated and activated by water immersion) Seems to be a bit of parentheses overkill going on here which is impacting the readability of the sentence.
 * Communications from Flight 370
 * Not seeing anything wrong with this section
 * Analysis
 * Whose innovative techniques were they?
 * Did this group have a name?
 * Map indicating the location of search and rescue operations of Australia would be helpful
 * Nice job with the concepts section making the article more understandable to non-experts
 * The deductions section is particularly engaging, well done
 * It seems that the burst timing offset subsection repeats some of the information in the concepts subsection
 * Is the burst timing offset the innovative technique described earlier.
 * An analysis of aircraft systems, particularly the electrical system and autopilot, are ongoing. Are they still on going?
 * Other analyses
 * Perhaps modest criticism of the IG by official groups and/or the reverse could be included here.
 * Have they published any evaluations in the last year?
 * This section is an interesting conclusion/recap of the above events, a bit unique style wise, but I like it.

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Thanks! I should be able to fix these tomorrow (within 24 hrs). AHeneen (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Issues addressed: Lead: Background: Analysis: Finally, I have added the latest analysis by the IG. I think I've addressed all of the issues, except the variety of English. Reading the article, nothing stands out to me as being inconsistent. The top of the article has a template (seen when editing) that indicates the article uses EngvarB (British/Commonwealth spellings) and there have been a few editors who have used the Auto Wiki Bot to clean-up the article, which should recognize the template and adjust spellings accordingly. I don't mind fixing any specific examples you find, but I don't see any issues with the article. AHeneen (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed dead urls, checklinks says the one journal paper requires a subscription, but that paper/url is an Open Access paper and can be accessed without a subscription
 * use of Malaysia Standard Time is now consistent, since UTC times are over 12 hours (eg. 22:41 UTC) and AM/PM aren't used, it should be clear the article uses 24-hour time
 * Use of Oxford comma is now consistent (, I used my browser's find function to find all " and" ("and" with a preceding space) to find these, so all instances should be corrected
 * Non-breaking spaces have been added where appropriate
 * I fixed the wording. I agree about the size. When I first nominated it, the lead was longer, but a few weeks later I read it again and decided it was too long and trimmed some information.
 * "The data/messages..." sentence now uses footnotes for the alternative names
 * "The aircraft was equipped..." now uses a bulleted list to make it easier to read (I think separate sentences incorporated into the paragraph would be too long)
 * There is no article for satellite communications (at least relevant to this article's subject). There is only the article for communications satellite (a redirect from satellite communication), which is already linked in the "Satellite datalink" subsection
 * Edited section to use the term "Joint Investigation Team"
 * There's no space for a map in this section, so I added a map of the search area to the "Timeline" section
 * I can't think of a way to state whose innovative techniques they were. The source doesn't explicitly state whose techniques they were. It seems to be Inmarsat's, but I can't rule out how much other agencies were involved in developing these techniques. I believe both the BTO and BFO analysis techniques were among the "innovative techniques" developed.
 * No reports have been issued since October 2014 relating to the analysis; in March 2015, Malaysia released a report, but it focused on "factual information" and included very little analysis.
 * The "concepts" section was intended to provide a brief overview, while the respective subsections discuss these topic in-depth. There is some overlap, but it is intentional.


 * Peer reviewer was lying to me about the varieties of English, but everything looks good now. I'll pass the GA review, congrats! Winner 42 Talk to me!  23:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)