Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Qantas fatal accidents/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 01:14, 18 May 2008.

Qantas fatal accidents
A short, but interesting and well-sourced list. I've tidied the formatting, but the content is by other authors over the last two years. TarHippo (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Such a controversial, contentious topic almost requires the article to be flawless. The lack of in-line citations is especially worrisome, given the gravity of the topic at hand.  Additional (albeit smaller) issues are the lack of a clearly defined lead, the dates being in the American format (they should probably be in international format since it's an Australian airline), and a relative lack of perspective.  As far as the last one goes, I mean that I think Qantas should have some representation here other then "they say", especially since the entire list is all about how what "they say" is wrong/misleading/a lie/whatever. Drewcifer (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. Completely agree with Drewcifer3000. This list fails almost all of the FLC criteria. The references are far to general, with no specific page numbers from the books and no in-line citations given to clearly show how they are used. One of the refs, Plane Crash Info, appears to be a self-published personal site. While he gives a list of references, much like with this list, there is no indication of where its used. Also, the link is not to any specific page, so no idea what is used from that site. The Lockheed File is also a self-published personal website, and it completely fails WP:RS. The lead statement seems extremely NPOV and controversial, basically giving the list the starting thought of "Quantas says this, now lets show how they lie." Also not sure on the list name, but can't currently find any similar lists to compare. Collectonian (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. My prior colleagues have presented a lot of what I feel. The sentence "Qantas quotes that it has never had a fatal jet airliner accident" is bad is so many ways, it is controversial, uncited, completely opposite of what the scope of the list is, and confuses the reader.  The lead is horrible, it fails to summarize the scope of the list, does not have a neutral point of view, and is lacking in basic information regarding the planes, the history of the airline, etc.  As pointed out earlier, for this list to be even considered for featured status, it needs to be close to perfection.  There are no in-line citations for contentious statements (I have added a fact tag for the first sentence) and nothing in the list is cited directly.  Also, the references are questionable on whether they are reliable.  Right now the list is no where near FL quality.  I recommend expansion, copyedit, stronger references, a peer review, and then maybe FLC.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @  '' 06:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I didn't read the first sentence as being unfair to Qantas — that they haven't had jet engined planes crash, but propellered ones have seems matter of fact enough to me — but I made a slight adjustment. I've added inline references to the table and tried to back some of the less trusted references up with others, but I don't have the books for page numbers. I've changed the date format as suggested, though someone Australian will have to verify that it is correct. Let me know if I'm on the right lines with what are hopefully improvements. TarHippo (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Inline citations are better, but still not good enough. For one thing, you're still using "PlaneCrashInfo", which seems to be a personal website, for the majority of the citations. Also, there are still no refs in the lead (not to mention the lead is too short anyway). Noble Story (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to replace "PlaneCrashInfo" as best I can. I've contacted the editor who added to book references, so hopefully they will be able to add page references to replace those that remain.  I've also added some citations to the lead.  What else should it be saying, or is it just that the guideline says it has to be longer to be a featured list? Most of the information is in the list itself as the description column is relatively verbose. Hippo (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.