Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Jack Pickell (12 March 2014). "9 crazy conspiracy theories about Malaysia Airlines flight 370". Boston.com. Archived from the original on 15 March 2014. Retrieved 12 November 2014. 6. The Illuminati is involved: 'Was looking at the Wikipedia page for the missing Malaysia Airlines, and noticed that it's was [sic] the 404th 777 Boeing produced,' Redditor i-am-SHER-locked wrote. 'An HTTP 404 error mean [sic] not found, which in this case is oddly approiate [sic] for the status of the aircraft, or just a concidence [sic]. Coincidence, i think not!'
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2014, when it received 7,601,345 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report9 times. The weeks in which this happened:
In a few days, Kiwimanic made large changes to the article. Does (or did) anyone have the time to go through them and check them? Unfortunately, I do not. In my experience, mistakes are often introduced and can stay in the article for a long time/ever when one editor makes a row of edits nobody is able to check. For example, one of the first additions is "Two interim reports, with very little information were issued". Is "with very little information" original research? Condensing is one thing but replacing specific info with opinions is not good for any article, and this one is not that bad that it would need this content condensing (it is a delisted good article). Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first interim report contained factual information about the plane but no analysis. The second interim report was only three pages long. I will change the wording to reflect the lack of analysis. Kiwimanic (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had to undo another of your edits which introduced factual errors into the article, claiming something that was not in the source. However, nobody has the time to check all of your edits. Please be more careful when editing (and perhaps, if I may offer an advice, choose a less complicated articles first). Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are very good at making vague accusations without providing sufficient evidence to explain what you are talking about. Your communication style is not helpful. You come across as very arrogant. Kiwimanic (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added this to the article: "The Malaysian Ministry of Transport's final report in July 2018 acknowledged “unlawful interference", either by the pilot or a third party, when the plane was manually turned towards the south shortly after 1.00am."[1] The Guardian is a reliable source.
WikiHannibal has deleted it three times claiming there is no mention of unlawful interference in the final report (which is over 1,500 pages). As far as I can tell, the final report is no longer available online, so we're left with the following... Kiwimanic (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source says: "New MH370 Report Finds 'Unlawful Interference By Third Party' Cannot Be Ruled Out"
This source says: "THE Malaysian government’s report into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 says all the evidence points to an incontrovertible conclusion — that the plane was under manual control, and that it was deliberately flown out into the Indian Ocean."
This source says: "No matter what we do, we cannot exclude the possibility of a third person or third party or unlawful interference.”
This source says: "The team of 19 Malaysians and representatives from aviation authorities of seven other countries said it could not rule out any "unlawful interference by a third party".
WikiHannibal seems to be the one introducing factual errors into the article. Kiwimanic (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link I added to my edit summary diff , works fine, see the link. Also as I said in my second edit summary diff, the link to the report is also used as a ref in the article so it is accessible. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT acccessible. The link you have provided is to the early report done in 2014. The final report was not published until 2018. Kiwimanic (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The very first page of the report I linked several times reads "Issued on 02 July 2018". As I said in the section above, this is a complicated article but reading a date from the first page should not be that hard. Please understand, that WP:COMPETENCE is required; and what it is:
the ability to read sources and assess their reliability.
the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus.
the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.
Relevance is also important. Whether the report you cited is the final one or not is totally irrelevant when your latest reason for deleting the sentence under discussion is "This is a statement with no informative value." The statement clearly has informative value. It says "unlawful interference" cannot be ruled out - ie that the interference was deliberate - someone committed mass murder killing 239 people. However, in order to realise that, you need to understand WP:COMPETENCE which requires:
the ability to read sources and assess their reliability.
the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus.
the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.
Since you don't seem to understand the significance of the words 'unlawful interference', consensus is not possible. Kiwimanic (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the disputed quote from the report, i.e. "could not rule out any unlawful interference by a third party", 1) that seems to be a quoatation by Kok from the press conference, and is part of his larger explanation, quoted in the very first Kiwimanic's Guardian source (which was used in the article and started this discussion) as: “The turn back could not be attributed to an anomalous system,” said Kok. “It has been established that the air turn back was done under manual control, not autopilot … we cannot rule out unlawful interference by a third party.” So I believe the quote is originally from Kok and not the report. 2) Also "cannot rule out" is not, in my understanding, the same as "acknowledge", as Kiwimanic added to the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So change the sentence citing Kok as the source instead of deleting the entire sentence. Be co-operative instead of disruptive. You've been around on WP long enough to know better. Kiwimanic (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 March 2024 the BBC documentary Why Planes Vanish: The Hunt for MH370 examined the claim that the flight path of the aircraft could be plotted by analysis of the disruption to Weak Signal Propagation Reporter signals on the day in question. Scientists at the University of Liverpool are undertaking a major new study to verify how viable the technology is, and what this could mean for locating the aircraft. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be incorporated into the article. I also found another BBC News article discussing this theory promoted by Richard Godfrey.[1] If this is discussed in Weak Signal Propagation Reporter: MH37- theory, then it should, at the very least, be discussed in this article (with cross-link to the WSPR page). However, it should be noted on the WSPR Talk page that some folks think that this is pseudoscience. On the other hand, we have few clues, so it is prudent to discuss this in the main article, even if it is considered a controversial theory. Considering that the search has gone on for over 10 years, then it would not be responsible to dismiss potential clues.
I've been following this page for a few days and I notice there has been multiple edits in the past twelve hours. The 10th anniversary of MH370's disappearance is tomorrow — March 8th 2024 — and I am concerned there will be an increase of plagiarism and other edits that perpetuates false news about MH370 and its fate.
There was an edit made on the MH370 main page at 15:58 & 15:59 (US Eastern Time on March 7th 2024) that claims the fate and whereabouts of MH370 is unknown. This information is not accurate. The data we have has shown for years that the fate of MH370 is inconclusive, but debris has been found thousands of miles away.
@Butterscotch5: Wikipedia's page protection policy is that articles are not usually protected preemptively. You can make a request for protection at WP:RFPP if vandalism/disruption/abuse becomes rampant and frequent. Fork99 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has ways to curb any disturbance. If editing gets crazy, that's when page protections can be made through WP:RFPP. – The Grid (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could we change the summary and site info to what it was before 150.143.91.118 edited it yesterday. Just "unknown" for both of these is false considering that we do have a rough estimate of where it went down, as well as showing that although the cause of the disaster is inconclusive, debris have been found. Pink Floyd Fan 101 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pink Floyd Fan 101: Done: Appears to have been in the infobox in a stable state for at least a few years, I think a better edit summary justification than "corrected" is needed to change it to "Unknown". Next time for edit requests, I would suggest going through the WP:Edit request wizard as it draws more attention to your request. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=logo}
Done: Appears to have been in the infobox in a stable state for at least a few years, I think a better edit summary justification than "corrected" is needed to change it to "Unknown". Next time for edit requests, I would suggest going through the WP:Edit request wizard as it draws more attention to your request. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)