Jump to content

Talk:Adam Air Flight 172

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAdam Air Flight 172 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 15, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 21, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 28, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that just 51 days after Adam Air's loss of Flight 574, Flight 172 snapped in half after a hard landing, but there were no casualties?
Current status: Good article

Angle of damage

[edit]

That's not 35 degrees. Looks more like 3.5 degrees.--Robbrown 03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a mistake made by the source. No matter, the disputed line has now been changed anyway. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The article is good, nicely sourced, gets to the point. Discussion of the main image at its IFD stalled...until that issue is cleared up the article is on hold. Perhaps another picture of an Adam Air plane can be used? PhoenixTwo 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now a GA. PhoenixTwo 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I should be thanking you for the review. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Adam Air Flight 172/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2007, so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant.Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

After an Initial read through, this article appears to at or about GA-level. I'll therefore look at it in more detail, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incident -
  • Ref 4 is broken.
  • Ref 5 is broken.
  • Ref 6 is a blog site and therefore on-compliant with WP:Verify.
  • Ref 8 is broken.
  • Grounding of Adam Air's 737s -
  • Ref 5 is broken (see above).
  • Ref 13 is broken.
  • Investigation -

.....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This section appears to be complaint in respect of WP:verify; however, the article states that the accident is under investigation. Is this still the case, or has it been completed; in which the article would need some updating?
  • Maintenance concerns -
  • There appears to be a problem with Ref 16.
  • Aftermath -

.....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the citations appear to be verifiable; however ref 17 states that in 2007 the accident was still under investigation - an update is needed.
  • From Adam Air, it appears that the company is no longer in business.
  • This appears to be a reasonable introduction / summary of the accident upto 2007, but could do with an update.

Pyrotec (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with most of this. I will need to check that blog source; it depends who's blog and what it's being used to back up, although even if after checking it out I disagree it needs to go I'll get rid of it if I can anyway. As for the investigation, it is not impossible that it remains under investigation after 2 years. It featured extensively in an edition of the regular update from the investigators, but as major investigations result in an English language report I rather doubt that was more than an update - need a bahasa speaker to confirm. If not, then earlier this year it was certainly still being probed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. It does not appear to be blog site for airline pilots to post anonymous near-miss reports - I "know" about them and would not require one of them to be removed. Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to replace the dead links. I have replaced all of them except for 2 Jakarta Post links in current ref. 4 and 7. I used an archive.org copy for an article on stuff.co.nz (current ref. 5). That probably can be replaced by a similar article. Oh and the dead link apparent blog mentioned above (ref. 6) is short and seems to be covered by other references in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A minor thing which got missed, I fixed the display of the ship names in the Aftermath section. Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 Jakarta Post dead links are "Adam Air paints its ill-fated plane" and "Adam Air passengers ask for money back". I have not been able to find replacements that support the content in the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Generally compliant, but there main two broken web links.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    generally compliant.

I'm marking this review as:- GA-status "keep". Pyrotec (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final report

[edit]

The Final Report into the accident has been released. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Air

[edit]

According to the page on Flight 574, Adam Air has been shut down and declared bankruptcy. The main page is written in the past tense, as a company that DID exist, but does no longer. Perhaps the article should be revised to reflect recent changes?.45Colt 14:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources modified on Adam Air Flight 172

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Adam Air Flight 172. I managed to add archive links to 3 sources, out of the total 3 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adam Air Flight 172. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam Air Flight 172. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flight origin and destination

[edit]

A year ago, I added the flight origin and destination in the infobox section of Adam Air Flight 172. The destination entry in the infobox was fixed by me on the latest edit, but why didn't this article include the flight origin and destination entry in the infobox section in the first place? Kevinmuniz115 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adam Air Flight 172. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Air_Flight_172&oldid=1204507205"