Talk:2019 Alta helicopter crash/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 20:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Hi there. I'll be completing a review of this article. From a brief skim it appears to be in good shape so I don't foresee any major issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Great! Look forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Minor issues resolved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All good now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Format of references looks good to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Sourcing is from reliable media outlets and government bodies. The article has extensive citations. I am confident this criterion is met. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   I do not see any uncited material, and my spotchecks all showed sources directly support the claims attributed to them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   From my spotchecks, all material I checked was written properly and avoided any copyvio or close paraphrasing. Earwig check also came back clean. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   We have extensive converage of the incident itself, the immediate response, and its aftermath, including changes to safety standards for helicopters. I cannot see any aspects that are insufficiently covered - I'd call this extent of coverage of the topic exhaustive and close to FA-level. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There is a fair amount of detail in the first two sections, and perhaps someone at FAC would raise a question about it, but for the purposes of GAN I don't think it's sufficient to cause a concern. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Having thoroughly read the article, I do not see any indications of bias in the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No concerns about article stability. History shows steady improvements. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are either public domain (works of the Norwegian government or released into the public domain by their author) or licensed with an acceptable Creative Commons license. No fair use images are included. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images depict the crash or related materials. Captions and alt text are good. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All criteria are satisfied, so I am happy to pass this nomination. Good job. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• Sourcing looks good and extensive, but (understandably) it's essentially all in Norwegian. I recommend providing English translations of the source titles, using the "translated title" parameter. For an example, see ref 8 at Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Prose comments

• His last contact with Helitrans was to last from 1 April to 30 November 2019 suggest a word change to avoid using "last" twice in a row.
• At 17:05, LN‑OFU's disappeared from Helitrans' GSM network, remove the "'s".
• At 17:18 they started sending messages by radio, which was picked up by a Widerøe plane flying over. Subject-verb agreement - the "was" should be "were".
• Add missing unit conversions, such as in the investigation section.
• Alta municipality mobilised a crisis response team at the town hall shortly after news of the accident were reported. Again, subject-verb agreement. "Were" should be "was". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• @ArcticSeeress: I still have to complete spot checks, which I will do later today (though I strongly suspect I will find no issues), but I'm essentially done with my prose comments. Please let me know your thoughts when you get a chance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  I've gone through and made the changes you've suggested. In regards to 3B: what parts of the first two sections did you consider to be excessive? ArcticSeeress (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  I was wondering if the detail on the pilot's history was too much, along with the detailed timeline of events. But I am not definitively saying that is the case, nor am I making the passage of this article contingent on that. I'm not super familiar with how articles for accidents are written, and what you have is well-written and relevant to the accident, so I'm reluctant to cast judgement and say "this is too much detail". If you want to bring this to FAC someday, people may raise concerns, but I'm also realizing I need to be careful not to apply too strict standards here (I just spent the past 3 months at FAC, and finally had my article promoted the other day). So, contingent on the spotchecks coming out OK, I'm going to pass this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks

I don't do anything fancy for spotchecks, I just pick a few sources that are used a decent amount.

• Ref 17: Good.
• Ref 38: Good.
• Ref 19: I do not see any mention in this source that supports The NSIA asked airport operator Avinor for any additional data they had from radar and air traffic control towers. Other instances it is cited are ok. This isn't exactly a controversial claim, but it is important that all citations do in fact support the material they are supporting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

From the source: "I tillegg har SHT bedt om å få dataene Avinor eventuelt har. Det gjelder radardata og lagret kommunikasjon med tårnet i Alta." Translated this would say "The NSIA have additionally asked for any data Avinor may have. This relates to radar data and saved communication with the tower in Alta." SHT (Statens havarikomissjon for transport) is the old name for the the NSIA, which changed to SHK on 1 July 2020. I just looked at the article history for the NSIA, and the old name in English seems to have been Accident Investigation Board Norway, or AIBN for short. Should I change it to fit the old name? I think a footnote may be more appropriate here (for example something like: Known at the time as Investigation Board Norway, or AIBN for short. The name was changed in July 2020 [insert reference here]). Tell me what you think. Anyway, I suppose the source technically only pertains to one tower in Alta, so I'll probably change that, but the info is indeed verified. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I see, I think it's a combination of the different name and my relying on a Google translation of the article that led me to miss the sentence in question. I think a footnote or a quick mention in parenthesis would be good here. But I see it does verify the claim, so I'm going to consider the spotchecks passed. I don't have any further concerns, so I will be passing this. I have high confidence in the article's quality and I can see you've paid close attention to accuracy and detail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go ahead and add a footnote. ArcticSeeress (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)