Talk:United Airlines Flight 232/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read through the article several times, and will start to look at the refs next. My initial impressions are that the lead is too short. WP:Lead suggests that it should be 3 to 4 paragraphs for an article of this size. It should also serve "both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects". It works as an introduction, but in terms of summarising the article, only appears to cover the Chronology of the flight section. I would not normally review the lead until I have finished reviewing the body of the article, but in this case can I suggest that you work on another good-sized paragraph, at least, that provides a reasonable summary of Investigation, Cause, Influence on the industry, Factors contributing to survival, and Similar accidents. All of these appear to be important aspects of the subject as written, and so should be summarised in the lead. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lead is now twice the length and five paragraphs; it reads better to have three little ones rather than one or two big ones. Summarizes entire article.  N419 BH  19:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am working my way through the article, and will note any points that need attention as I go, leaving the lead till last. Please respond with details of what has been done below each point, rather than putting them all at the end.


 * Chronology
 * nacelle is a bit of a jargon word for non-aircraft people. Suggest adding a simple explanation on first occurrence.✅ Diannaa  (Talk)
 * Haynes grabbed the throttle but it would not move reads well if this was an adventure story, but not so well in an encyclopaedia. Try rewording it.✅ Diannaa  (Talk)
 * Both of these inputs would never be utilized in normal flight reads awkwardly. Can it be improved?✅ Diannaa  (Talk)
 * Out of options and in danger of rolling completely inverted again reads awkwardly.✅ Diannaa  (Talk)
 * 1500 ft needs metric conversion✅ Diannaa  (Talk)
 * there was a scramble as the trucks rushed. Adventure story style again, I think.✅ Diannaa  (Talk)
 * lap children is not immediately obvious. It is explained further down, but ought to be on first occurrence (though I think it is now also in the lead).✅ Now defined once in the lead, and in the first instance in the body. Diannaa (Talk)
 * as the fuselage rolled inverted reads akwardly.✅ Diannaa  (Talk)


 * Investigation
 * It turned out... needs rewording✅ Diannaa  (Talk)
 * Is there a ref for the "triple vacuum process", and the other fan disks with cracks? Yes, ✅.  N419 BH  02:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cause - ok.
 * Influence
 * Image:Dc10-us.png needs attention, as it results in lots of white space. Either move it further down the section, or place it immediately below UAL_232_Fan.png, so that it flows into this section. ✅ Fan disk image moved to left side of page.  N419 BH  02:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest replacing #3 with number 3 as previously. (Five occurrences in this section).✅ Diannaa  (Talk)
 * control would still be lost, the aircrew would still be able to control ... doesn't read well, with two "still"s so close together. Try rewording.✅ Diannaa  (Talk)


 * Factors
 * the relatively shallow angle of descent likely played a large part in the relatively high survival rate. Is this correct, when it says that it was descending at 1850 fpm, when it should have been 300 fpm?
 * "angle" and "rate" are two different things. Might need clarification.  N419 BH  01:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * and ✅ footnote added.  N419 BH  02:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the media
 * There are no refs in this section. The episode guide for I Survived (linked from that article) might be a possibility
 * combined this with the "in popular culture" section and the data contained in both is largely of similar nature.  N419 BH  00:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Similar accidents
 * Again, no refs. This is more serious, in view of claims like This is the first and only documented time.... Since each accident has its own page, they might provide suitable refs.
 * ✅ NTSB reports referenced for U.S. accidents, FAA referenced for JAL, Aviation Safety Network referenced for the remaining.  N419 BH  00:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have got a few more things to check, but in terms of style, it is looking good. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * References
 * Ref 27 - Dennis Fitch Speakers-Network does not appear to work, as it goes to the Speakers-Network home page, with no obvious link to Dennis Fitch.
 * ✅ Reference removed along with statement it backed up, which I never liked anyway. Fitch is notable because of UAL 232, not because of his presence on a committee.  N419 BH  00:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * This is now much better. I have made a few adjustments. I wonder if there are too many refs. Second para has 6 refs, all to source 1. Might be better to just have one at the end. Para 3 has 5 refs, all to source 1. Same comment.
 * I think the long list of non-available control surfaces would be better in the article than the lead.
 * Para 3 is ambiguous about whether it was a crack or multiple cracks, as it uses both. It needs to be consistent.
 * All ✅. List of control surfaces is gone completely, redundant refs removed, paragraph three clarified.  N419 BH  23:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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:

A few small items to deal with, and it should be there. I am placing the article of hold for 7 days. I will check back most days to see if all items have been addressed. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

All concerns have now been addressed. Congratulations on a well-written article which manages to capture the drama of the events in an encyclopaedic style. I now have no hesitation in awarding it good article status. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)