Talk:2001 Biggin Hill Airshow crashes/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Nominator: 11wallisb (talk · contribs) 13:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 17:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello 11wallisb, I'd be glad to review this article. I see you created the article last May and have been tinkering away at it since. I once brought to GA the Germanwings Flight 9525 article, so this one is right in line for me. (My last review was for the Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident.) So far, this article seems to be in good shape. I'll start reviewing right away, and edit here again soon. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Prhartcom! Thank you for this. I look forward to working with you to bring this article to GA! I am currently experiencing seasonal illness, so I'm not 100% at the moment. I will do my best to make any changes that are suggested during this process! Thanks! 11WB (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh dear, lucky you. Understood; I've been there.

Next time, you may want to announce on the Talk page that you are bringing the article to GA. That's something the reviewers look for.

Well-written

The article appears to be quite well-written. Regardless, most of my comments for any review are likely to be regarding this criteria. I'll be looking at every paragraph's opening sentence, every one of which should be high-quality prose, quickly attracting our interest and introducing us to the exciting paragraph we are about to read. And I'll be looking at every closing sentence, each of which should end the paragraph's story with a chord.

Verifiable

The sources of this article appear to hold up. I am surprised the Pilot article never mentioned the date of the incident, never said they were writing about a historic disaster.

"Former Royal Air Force pilot Guy Bancroft-Wilson ..." Unless I am misreading the source, it says that Sir Kenneth Hayr, not Guy Bancroft-Wilson, was former RAF. Guy Bancroft-Wilson was a British Airways captain.

"He also held a display authorisation ..." I'm afraid the Coventry Live source doesn't exactly say this (although I don't doubt it).

"This requires the pilot perform ... display sequence practices ..." I would think that this fact would be in the previously cited Requirements and Guidance reference as well. Look for it, and if so, maybe move that citation down a bit to cite this, if not, then why are we citing this source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prhartcom (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Partly done I have included Wilson's to state he was a British Airways captain also. The Coventry Live report fails to mention he was a pilot with the Red Arrows.
•  Not done You want to see ref 9 for this, which is the official report for that accident. Page 2, paragraph 3. This is correct, he did have a Cat C.

Bear with me whilst I check the last one. (Also you didn't sign your response, which makes it more difficult to reply!) 11WB (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

For the carrying out 90 days preceding a display, this information is available in both ref 9 page 2, paragraph 3 and ref 16 page 64 at the bottom on the grid. Either ref can be used, but I chose 9, I am happy to add 16 to the end of that sentence however. 11WB (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done 11WB (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I realise now those sentences had the wrong refs applied to the preceding information. I have edited this so they are now representative of what is said. The Coventry Live source does correctly state who Wilson is, however that source was not added after the display authorisation part, that was ref 16, which only explained about the three display sequences in 90 days prior to an air display. This should all be correct now. 11WB (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Just re-checked the first one you mentioned. Wilson did fly for the Red Arrows which are the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team. They are one and the same. The Coventry Live article for some reason fails to mention this by the looks of it. Fortunately, ref 9 does mention it, page 2, paragraph 2. I have included specifically that he was a Red Arrows pilot, rather than how it was written before, which was ambiguous. 11WB (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking good; thanks for your thoughtful improvements. I will continue more, tomorrow late. This time I will remember to sign: Prhartcom (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Late here as well, so I'm probably going to sign off until the morning. 11WB (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The entire article is quite well-structured; excellent section headings. On the surface the article seems to be clear and complete. It's very good for a first-time GA. Rather than just passing it, however :-) I am now examining it very closely.

Background section

It may at first seem odd to do so, but I am comparing this article to the Hollywood slapping incident article I mentioned earlier, a good article. I do see that the Background section of any of these articles should start at the beginning and tell us what we need to know, leading us right up to the moment of the incidents. I suppose it's fair to say that some background of this article is missing, and perhaps it would be straightforward for you to fix it thusly: Write a brief new paragraph, right below the Background heading, that quickly gets readers up to speed about what is a Biggin Hill Airshow and how it was going that morning.

The rest of the Background section is good. Prhartcom (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this. This is actually covered in the 2001 Biggin Hill Airshow disasters#Subsequent observations and aftermath. The Venom, if I recall, was the first flight of the day. After it had a bad landing they had a postponement.

Information on the following displays is already present:

'Due to the Venom being unable to partake in any displays after the damage it had taken from the landing, the Vampire and Sea Vixen would pair up for a short sequence display followed by shorter solo displays later that day. The airshow instead opened with a helicopter display from the Blue Eagles which could perform without needing the full runway. This performance included the UK's first female military display pilot Sergeant Julie Wiles. This performance was followed by many other displays and flybys, including the Red Arrows which flew in from another airport.'

I don't know if any sources include anything about the next day before or after the Kingcobra crash, and if they did, it would almost certainly be WP:PRIMARY.

The information is there, I'm unsure whether anything else would be relevant to the article. The sequence of events means the application of your suggestion isn't really possible, as the first flight of the weekend was the Venom. Everything else follows from there. 11WB (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

What is a Biggin Hill Airshow? - This is covered in the lead paragraph. I've added the word 'annually' to denote that it took place once a year. @Prhartcom 11WB (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Think of the lead section as a "preview" of the article they are about to read. Then when they finish reading the lead, the article actually begins, and so it would be appropriate for the first section to start at the beginning. And, it would be appropriate for a Background section to provide everything the reader needs to know. Prhartcom (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Will gather some reliable sources and will begin writing the paragraph tomorrow or during the week. 11WB (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I have written a short paragraph on the Airshow here. 11WB (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

It is quite good. A nice improvement to this article. Prhartcom (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

June 2 Venom incident and Vampire crash section

This section is good. Prhartcom (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Question: When a pilot is "turning 405° to the left", does that mean the aircraft is completing a full 360° turn plus an additional 45° turn in the same left direction? Prhartcom (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

These are specific air display manoeuvres, and are beyond my area of aviation knowledge. Line astern is multiple aircraft flying together in a straight line. As for 405°, this would be the heading set on the pilot displays in the cockpit. I can't confirm what you said to be right or wrong as this gets quite technical.

Going to ping @Aviationwikiflight for help on this one. 11WB (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Vampire crash section

I'm honestly interested but I can't tell exactly from the prose at what moment things started to go wrong. Was it during one of the "roll to the right"? When I read the second "rolling to the right", I was shocked to then read that it lead to "crashing into woods". Perhaps do we need some minor sentence tweak to clarify which of those described moments was unexpected (e.g., adding "Unfortunately" or "However" or "But"). Prhartcom (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

There is apparently footage of the crash, however it isn't available publicly. The Vampire was fine up until a specific manoeuvre, then five seconds later, that was it. It was a very sudden accident. 11WB (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Would adding 'unfortunately' or a similar adjective not violate WP:NPOV? 11WB (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It kinda would, yes. And you have been so thoughtful regarding that throughout this article. I was only reaching for a way to quickly communicate to the reader what was the "oh no" moment, as our help seemed to be missing. Maybe this: "But it continued rolling to the right, crashing into woods" Prhartcom (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I apologise. I realise I've not been very collaborative in this review. I would like to make these changes, however making them work with what's already present is the challenging part. My personal biggest concerns are regarding images and how the references are formatted, as was described here. 11WB (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

11wallisb, I'd be glad to show you how the Harvard citation template works; I once co-wrote (and took to FA) this article that uses it; it is most beneficial for books, as multiple different citations may point to a single source (e.g. multiple different pages point to a single book). And I remember once rewriting much of this article that uses the Short Footnote template; take a look at both of these articles and see how both templates work. But your cited references to your sources are perfectly fine for GA. And knowing this shouldn't prevent you from making improvements to this article spotted by this reviewer. Prhartcom (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I have previously attempted to adopt both template styles into the article, but I just couldn't do it. I don't know if it is because I don't use the visual editor or if my understanding of how to implementation is just not clicking. I tried it twice for both styles and failed to get anywhere both times. For this article, I think I'd be more comfortable looking at how another editor does it and try to learn on a diff-by-diff basis. Won't be tonight though as it's late here! 11WB (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, man, go to sleep; it's probably 3 in the morning there; you probably have to go to work like me. I'll chat with you tomorrow. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks again! 11WB (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I have rewritten those sentences and included the word 'suddenly' to indicate where the Vampire display began to go wrong. 11WB (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Prhartcom (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Regarding the citation style, I don't think I have the energy to attempt that currently, I am still unwell. I've been reducing my activity on Wikipedia so that I can focus on recovering, among other things. If it is necessary for the article to be elevated to GA, I think somebody else who both knows how to do it and is well enough to do it, should be the one to make those edits. 11WB (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Your citation style is fine in this article, dear colleague. FA has stronger citation requirements, but GA does not have requirements to this extent. Please do not spend another moment of your valuable energy on this. Should you one day decide to take this article to FA, you can worry about perhaps changing to Harvard style then. Prhartcom (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Reactions section

Maybe this version of that paragraph instead; what do you think: "Despite the two fatal accidents and minor incident, the Biggin Hill Airshow was held the following year 2002, when responsibility of running the airshow was handed over to the airport itself. It then continued to be held annually by Air Displays International, who had run the airshow from 1982. In 2011, it was replaced by an open house air day." Prhartcom (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Quick reply here, may need to put this on hold as I've unfortunately chundered tonight (I don't know a better way of explaining that, I'm sorry!). I've been rather stupid by still doing things whilst I've been ill and now my body is paying the price. Give me about 24-48 hours and I should be okay to continue Wikipedia activities. I'll leave the decision to formally put this GA review on hold or not. I'm really sorry! 11WB (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh my, dear colleague, that is right by me. Of course you must take care of yourself, you silly. There is no hurry. All the best, positive thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

BTW, I finished reading the article again. I really like the article. It is quite polished. It is readable. Some of the facts in the prose are so shocking to read, yet contrasting with the calm, clear, succinct, neutral Wikipedia voice. The sentences are perfectly constructed and connect well to each other, telling the facts of the story. The closing sentence of many paragraphs end with a chord, the way I like.

Ping when you are ready to wrap up this review. Prhartcom (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This is entirely down to bad timing honestly. I took medication and just carried on, and tonight my body said that's enough. Completely my fault. Thank you for taking the time to review the article despite the circumstances, I genuinely feel really bad about this. My edits have suffered because I haven't had the energy to be as thorough as I usually am when I'm well. Fortunately, the article was, as you said, reasonably polished otherwise. 11WB (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I have reworded the paragraph you mentioned above. 11WB (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Even better. Tighter. This is good. Prhartcom (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you're fine with me. Honestly, I wouldn't have even noticed what you're going through; you are so responsive. Thanks for that, certainly! (Maybe I should have suggested at the start that we wait a bit. Ah.) Regardless, please get better soon! And let's wrap up this review! :-) Prhartcom (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

It's always sad when a Wikipedia article ends, but the end of this one was a bit anti-climatic. After reading the satisfying Conclusion sections, we readers are ready to read a final paragraph describing some sort of legacy. But all we get is news of an installed telephone line. What if we could read a short new ending section, maybe with some quotes from people who recalled the tragedies, perhaps found in the sources of the Reactions section?

I have done three more spot-checks. This article is verifiable, with no original research.

Nicely illustrated. Good thing you didn't have to do any of the file work yourself; saved yourself some work there. These files that you found are perfect.

Of course this article is stable. It is neutral. And I believe it is broad in its coverage. Prhartcom (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Prhartcom, that's a simple fix. Could just move the Reactions section to the end? 11WB (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done This works better anyway! 11WB (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It does! Brilliant. That's what was needed. Magnificent. Prhartcom (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Not sure what remains. The article has definitely been improved somewhat through this process, despite my editing being affected by illness. I am probably 70% of the way back to being healthy, just a bit run-down, but I am more able to get back to general editing now, I think. Happy to finish this review anytime! 11WB (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

LOL Patience, dear! Hold your horses! I have to get off work first. :-)

This article is very well-written.

11wallisb, regarding the illustrations, today I notice this article appears on the mobile Wikipedia app without an opening illustration. So, it's less impactful in that way. I suppose this must be because the Infobox file is a map instead of a photo. Hmm, well, it's something I wanted to point out to you, in case you wanted to look into this later.

Pass. This is a good article. Congratulations, 11wallisb! Would you like to consider reviewing an article yourself now? Stay in touch, anytime. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Apologies! That message wasn't intended to rush you. Thank you for reviewing the article. An image can be added to the infobox, so I will have a look and see if there are any that are appropriate to use! In progress 11WB (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Hey 11wallisb! I rewrote the lead paragraph, improving it, trimming a bit that we can read later. What do you think:

The Biggin Hill Airshow disasters occurred on June 2 and June 3, 2001 at the at the annual Biggin Hill Airshow at London Biggin Hill Airport in Bromley, England. A aircraft landing incident and two separate fatal aircraft crashes occurred during the weekend show. A de Havilland Venom suffered minor damage to its fuselage when it landed with its landing gear retracted. Six hours later, a de Havilland DH-115 Vampire was attempting a wingover when the aircraft lost control and dove into the ground, destroying the Vampire and killing pilots Air Marshal Sir Kenneth Hayr and Jonathan Kerr. Then, a Bell P-63 Kingcobra crashed the next day after attempting a maneuver with insufficient speed, destroying the aircraft and killing pilot Guy Bancroft-Wilson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prhartcom (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the lead is probably fine as it is already. Everything is nicely summed up leading the reader into the sections below. Thanks for passing the article by the way! When I get some free time I will consider conducting a GA review myself. I also hope to bring this article to FA at some point in the future! 11WB (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Take it to the talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

No problem @Prhartcom. If the review is complete, this discussion can be closed. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

No problem here as well, 11wallisb. Get better soon. Keep editing. Glad to hear you will review soon. Request a Peer Review of this article next. Then FA; enjoy that; FA will be difficult; many reviewers pouring over your work. Go for it. But first, hurry and do WP:DYK, it's fun, and it's for the Main Page. Contact me on my Talk page any time. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.