Talk:Adam Air Flight 574

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleAdam Air Flight 574 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.
On this day... Article milestones
January 18, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
March 5, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 8, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 7, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 1, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 1, 2018.
Current status: Delisted good article

Article improvement[edit]

It is almost eight months since the accident and the content is stable. Blood Red Sandman and I have mentioned tidying up the article. I guess the first step is identifying what needs to be done. A quick read-through suggests that facts not relevant to the incident (the body of the local woman, for example) should probably go. So too should most of the quotes, with the info incorporated directly into the text. The names of who said various things might not be needed in all cases, either. Thoughts? Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've gone through and tried to apply {{convert}} to all the relevent units. FA reviewers like to see consistency in units usage, and usage in this article is a bit complex, so for the record: All units references that are relevant to aviation operations have been set up to use aviation standard units primarily (such as knots, which then convert to km/h). All other units, such as distances in the search sections, use metric units first, and then appropriate imperical units converted (either standard, or in the case of ship-related cases, nautical). I know this is complex, but I ask the FA reviewer to have a little patience and understanding. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you changed knot to kt. MOS:NUM suggests that all units outside of parentheses be spelled out in full. If there are no objections, I am going to turn off the abbrev command in the templates where appropriate. Also, I think some of the conversions are overly precise, e.g. 30000 feet = 9144 m. 9140 is probably ok here. Thoughts? Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't really matter that much to me...the reason I had it turned on was so that km/h wasn't spelled out. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. The abbr command in {{convert}} only affects the non-parenthetic part; the units in parentheses are always abbreviated. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good work there, AK. I'm glad someone knows the finer points of the MOS! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm going to change all the remaining present tenses that should be past tense over, and do some minor rejigging of what else is currently there - would all be done by now if the Wikimedia servers hadn't crashed. And then, we can start trimming down the excess crap! BTW, I'm also going to keep checking Google news for anything new to add as well - I've been doing that from about five hours after the plane disapeared from radar. The result is I've created a comprehensive article that now needs us to step back and look at what needs to be there, and what can go. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completed, wasn't as bad as I had been anticipating. Now the real work begins! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maintenance concerns[edit]

I have a bit of concern over this section, as it is overall only marginally related to this actual crash, and the subsection on the specific accident aircraft is purely speculative by implying that earlier factors may have contributed. I feel that it really isn't our job to analyze the data and come up with possible reasons why the crash occurred. As an example, the last sentence suggests that a faulty radar might have been a factor. Yes, I know there's a ref, but should we be pontificating like this? I'd suggest trimming the whole section down to a simple statement that the media has reported maintenance concerns and the media has speculated that they might have been a factor, but that this has not been conclusively determined. Thoughts? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to mention that "this included a number of reports about the captain's side vertical speed indicator, which informs the air crew what speed the airplane is ascending or descending at, and the aircraft's left right inertial reference system, which informs pilots what direction the aircraft is turning in" as I feel that these are significant enough components to warrant a brief mention. However, I don't think the data should be deleted entirely - I think a lot of the allegations, findings etc could be added to the article on Adam Air. It already deals a bit with maintenance issues there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference style[edit]

I don't have any huge preference for or against the use of {{cite web}} and related templates, but I think we should at the very least replicate their output style. This is probably a low priority, since some refs will likely be coming out. But I will do it when the time comes. Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I insist on doing it. It's my mess; it was done that way because of the large volume of refs that needed added, with the intention of converting them all to the apropriate templates later. I don't want anyone else to go through the boredom of ref-fixing on my account. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, sometimes replicating their output style isn't enough for the GA and FA reviewers. I recently had one that insisted I use the actual template. I know it actually isn't required, but I figured that it'd be easier to do it than dispute with the guy and delay the review. Sandman, don't worry about the mess, I do the same thing myself. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A note to anyone watching this - I'm going to do it slowly whenever I have a few free minutes - a handful of references at a time. It saves me getting too bored - at least, when I do have nothing better to do, my time is not entirely wasted! It will hopefuly be done by New Year, but don't bet on it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Human remains[edit]

I am proposing the complete deltion of this section. It mainly deals with the body of the local, which, as mentioned above, isn't really relevant. This leaves the problem of the scalp on the headrest. It's too litle - just a sentence - for a whole section. The best way is to incorporate it into the 'Floating debris' section. However, the best way of entering it, IMO, is to tie it in with the headrest listed as amongst the recovered junk. Is that stretching the references too far? Or is it acceptable to assume the two headrests are one and the same? On the side, I have notified the Indonesia and Disaster managemnet wikiprojects of the collaboration taking place here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be a stretch to assume their the same, as seat cushions are natural floaters, and so I'd fully expect that they would have found more than one. However, I do agree with the removal of the remains section; I'd say just add the headrest with the hair in to the floating debris section in an ambiguous way. Oh, and regarding your mention of the collaboration, let me say how wonderful it is to work in this kind of collaborative environment...I've recently refereed a couple of very rancorous edit and content disputes in other articles, and the type of cooperation and discussion here is a breath of very fresh air! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone ahead and done it. I simply used the text as it stood, as it ambiguously talked about 'a' headrest, but if anyone has any better ideas, obviously, feel free. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

False reports of discovery[edit]

I have condensed this section, removing quotes and details I felt aren't really relevant (diff). Let me know know what you think. The one ref that I removed was not used elsewhere. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good to me, in fact, the whole article is looking a good bit tidier already. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red links[edit]

I'm going to make stub articles of the red links, based on my knowledge about the area. — Indon (reply) — 07:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may want to hold off until the article is rewritten in case some of the redlinks are removed. Mind you, if you feel they should be articles, by all means write them! Flyguy649 talk contribs 13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, anything that you reckon should be an article, go ahead and create something. It's good to have someone on hand who knows the lie of the land - I'm in the UK, Akradecki's in the States and I assume Flyguy's in the States somewhere too (but that's only based on the fact that most people here seem to be). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Canada. ;) -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, well, I was close(ish). At least you didn't tell me you were actually from Indonesia yourself, or something embarassing like that. ;-) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Looking over the article and its past peer reviews, etc, I haven't really found much more to improve here. Are there any outstanding issues that you, as the major editors, are aware of? Can this article be confidently nominated for FA? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One particular piece of advice I remember receiving - I think it was at the peer review - was to try and increase the use of dates etc (e.g. instead of "John Smith went home" say "John Smith went home on September 20, 2007"). So that's one thing that definitly needs done. It will also need some more minor fidling - cutting down on exact quotes etc. But I reckon it's close. One thing we should consider first is a second peer review, although I'm not optimistic about actually getting any comments due to the state peer review was in last time I checked. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A minor grammar improvement: the article says "scouring the sea off Majene for on Sulawesi". Clearly ungrammatical. I'd try fixing it, but I don't know what it's supposed to be saying. Mcswell (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo of the actual aircraft involved[edit]

There's a photo of PK-KKW (the aircraft involved) in the investigation report. Or we can just re-add the image of PK-KKW while it was still in service with JAT Airways under a different registration. Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]