Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 253/GA1

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

Reviewer: Airplaneman   ✈  18:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

That was, uh, fast (not really complaining, though...)  — fetch ·  comms   02:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the Al-Qaeda involvement section, first sentence: On December 28, 2009, Obama in his first address said the incident... - does it mean his first address related to the incident, or his first ever address, or something else (it's unclear at the moment)? I'm pretty sure it's the first option; please clarify. Airplaneman   ✈  21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarified, cited, changed the quote a bit per the source I used.  — fetch ·  comms   01:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are a number of dead links in the references, including references numbers 15, 70, 79, 87, 144, 145, 152, and 159. Please also see the checklinks results. Airplaneman   ✈  21:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All of them tagged, can't find any online archives of them yet.  — fetch ·  comms   02:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine. Please add working links when you can. Airplaneman   ✈  21:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The passage On April 6, 2010, it was reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. is unreferenced in both the lead and al-Awlaki's section (last paragraph). Please provide a reference to (at least) the passage in the section. Airplaneman   ✈  21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This passage is mentioned a third time in the "domestic response" section, this time with a ref. I'll add it to the other passage (not to the lead passage). Does it really need to be mentioned thrice? How about cutting it from the "domestic response" section? Airplaneman   ✈  22:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't realize it was also in the domestic response section, or I would've removed it earlier (one of the biggest challenges for me before was removing redundant/duplicated info!). Removed now. I only referenced quotes in the lede, so I didn't add a citation there, hopefully that's fine.  — fetch ·  comms   01:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Airplaneman   ✈  02:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, everything's in order. Airplaneman   ✈  23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Very comprehensive. I don't think it's overly comprehensive, although FA reviewers may ask for you to trim some things (as in the first FA review). I don't have a problem with it; it's ~2,000 kb smaller than when the FA candidate was reviewed, and the detail provides a very full, detailed picture of what happened. Airplaneman   ✈  21:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Passes easily. Airplaneman   ✈  23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Yup. Airplaneman   ✈  23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Passing with flying colors :). Definitely GA status. For a possible second FAC, I would recommend addressing the unaddressed concerns (if any) from the first FA review. Congrats!  Airplaneman   ✈  02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: Passing with flying colors :). Definitely GA status. For a possible second FAC, I would recommend addressing the unaddressed concerns (if any) from the first FA review. Congrats!  Airplaneman   ✈  02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

 * I know this might have been discussed before, but do you think it's worth mentioning this event's nickname, the "Christmas Day Bombing", in the lead or somewhere else in the article? I haven't a preference either way, but it's something to consider. Airplaneman   ✈  21:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was removed from the lede per some MOS thing or other (or maybe I am remembering wrong), but I think I could stick it in somewhere (if I can find a ref for it).  — fetch ·  comms   02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Added in 2nd overall paragraph, does it look OK?  — fetch ·  comms   02:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Airplaneman   ✈  02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)