Template:Did you know nominations/Gatwick Airport drone incident


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Gatwick Airport drone incident

 * ... that, in West Sussex, intentionally disrupting over 1,000 flights and delaying almost 150,000 passengers is not considered terrorism? Source:  - "Sussex Police said it was not terror-related but a "deliberate act" of disruption, using "industrial specification" drones." and  - "A Gatwick spokesman said around 1,000 aircraft have been cancelled or diverted,  affecting approximately 140,000 passengers, since Wednesday night."
 * Comment: No QPQ needed - this is my second DYK
 * Comment: No QPQ needed - this is my second DYK

Created by GWA88 (talk). Nominated by DannyS712 (talk) at 11:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Date and length fine. I had initial concerns about the hook but am happy with how it is in the article. I do note there are some citation tags in the article which will need to be sorted before I can continue with the review.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Why should it be classed as terrorism? Quite obviously, it isn't. And, the whole thing is looking more and more like a hoax. Not a good item for DYK. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it --DannyS712 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Continuing with the review as above. I am going to pass the hook but I do feel it may be better to say "was not" rather than "is not" as it was what the incident was deemed as at the time, plus maybe include Gatwick in the hook. But these are minor issues and my review will still stand if they are added. QPQ not needed as per QPQcheck. No close paraphrasing. Good to go.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * --DannyS712 (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alt2: ...that, at Gatwick Airport in West Sussex, intentionally disrupting over 1,000 flights and delaying almost 150,000 passengers was not considered terrorism?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Yes, I'm fine with that.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not considered cookery, either. Why not "that, a drone over-flight at Gatwick Airport in West Sussex, intentionally disrupted over 1,000 flights, delaying almost 150,000 passengers"? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for your claim that it is not "cookery"? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it's poorly-worded and invites a reader to think that it may be considered terrorism elsewhere and that there is something wrong with the people of West Sussex, along the lines of (the many Australian jokes to the effect that) "in Tasmania, it is considered acceptable to have sex with members of your family". I like Andy Mabbett's suggestion above, and edited it a bit for grammar. YSSYguy (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A few things. First, Pigsonthewing, I want to apologize for my comment above. I meant it as a joke, but I don't think that was easy to tell without the inflection of verbal communication, so I'm sorry. Second, on further thought, and based on YSSYguy's explanation, I agree that the current hooks may not be in the best of tastes, so I'd like to propose my own alternative below. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Alt4: ...that, at Gatwick Airport in West Sussex, reports of drones can lead to disruption to over 1,000 flights and delays for almost 150,000?
 * I suggest a small change to "reports of drones led to..."; other than that, I think it looks good. YSSYguy (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for your claim that this is [still] the case? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If we change it to "led", as YSSYguy suggests, then we don't need RS that it is still the case, but only that it was, which is evident in the article --DannyS712 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg At the moment, neither the 1,000 number nor the 150,000 number has an inline source citation in the article as required per DYK rules nor do they appear in the body of the article; indeed, the 150,000 number is currently given varyingly as "about 140,000" in the lede and "140,000+" in the infobox. These will need to be addressed in the article; once they have been, then perhaps ALT5 below will suit:
 * ALT5: ... that, at Gatwick Airport in West Sussex, reports of drones have led to the disruption of over 1,000 flights and delays for about 140,000 passengers? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have no problem with that --DannyS712 (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DannyS712, it's been over two weeks, and the article has not been edited to address the issues I raised, including the need to source the numbers of flights and passengers affected. If there isn't action in the next seven days, I will regretfully have to mark the nomination for closure. I hope that won't be necessary. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check ALT5 and its sourcing. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT5 verified as stated in both the article and The Telegraph news source. Hook approved. — Maile (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)