Talk:Southwest Airlines Flight 1380/GA1

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Nominator: Ivebeenhacked (talk · contribs) 23:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll take this review as you have a good review/nominations ratio. Keep it up! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

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

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

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

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

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

5. Is it stable?

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

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General comments

• Article is stable, neutral, focused, and broad. Images are relevant, suitably captioned, and freely licensed (most are US government works).
• The lead needs improvement. The current final paragraph is too technical for most general readers (see WP:EXPLAINLEAD) but per MOS:LEAD it should summarise the details of the investigation, findings and final report, which are currently not present there.
  • On a separate note, the claim in the lead that "This accident was very similar to an accident suffered 20 months earlier by Southwest Airlines Flight 3472" is not cited in the body or explicitly mentioned in the report at the end of the paragraph.
• The "final report" section is mostly bullet points, which falls under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists (criterion 2b). Per MOS:EMBED, I'd expect that this information be written as prose. I also note this is cited to the primary source; there should be secondary sources cited too to give a better idea of WP:DUEWEIGHT.
• You could include more details about Riordan using this source. Similarly, I was interested to note Tammie Jo Shults had her own article, and a little more could be said about her.
• Sources seem generally reliable, aside from three tweets which do not fall under WP:SPS and should be replaced by secondary sources. The two YouTube media briefings should include timestamps/quotes for easier verifiability. I'm not sure how source 38, a press release published on July 24, could verify "The NTSB held an investigative hearing on November 14, 2018."
• There is quite a bit of WP:PROSELINE in the "Initial investigation" section.
• It seems there were other lawsuits against Southwest and Boeing other than the one described in "Reactions". Also, did revenue actually decline in the second quarter?
• I will conduct a source spotcheck shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

This table lists 6 random passages with 2+ citations from throughout the article (30.0% of 20 total passages with 2+ citations). These passages contain 12 inline citations (13.8% of 87 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
There were 144 passengers and 5 crew members on board.
3	b	ntsb.gov	web.archive.org		A copy-paste of the executive summary cited below, no reason to cite it separately.
1	g	ntsb.gov	web.archive.org		Page 11 of the PDF is not page 11 of the report.
The parameters of the flight data recorder (FDR) showed that the left engine's performance died down, vibration became drastic, and within five seconds, the cabin altitude alert activated, meaning that the cabin is suffering a cabin depressurization. The FDR also showed that the aircraft rolled left by about 41.3° before the pilots were able to counter the roll.
9	a	avherald.com
10	a	abc13.com	web.archive.org
Technical teams from CFM International assisted with the investigation.
20		twitter.com			Should be removed or replaced with a secondary source.
1	l	ntsb.gov	web.archive.org		I suspect the wrong page number again.
On April 23, 2018, Southwest Airlines announced that it was voluntarily going beyond the FAA EAD requirement and performing ultrasonic inspections on all CFM engines in its fleet, including two each on around 700 Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 aircraft.
30		latimes.com	web.archive.org
31		businessinsider.com
The aircraft remained there and never flew again.
35		flightradar24.com	web.archive.org		Limited reliability but WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
36		flightaware.com	web.archive.org		Limited reliability but WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
Finally, Boeing has up to December 31, 2029, to issue fixes of any other possible maintenance mistakes.
46		federalregister.gov
47		aerotime.aero			Close paraphrasing of source.

Overall, some fairly serious source issues here: the page numbers for the accident report all need to be adjusted, and there's some close paraphrasing and poor sourcing. I'm putting this on hold for the issues to be addressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I have some comments and/or suggested edits. Is this the correct time & place to discuss them?

1. In the lead it says "One passenger was partially ejected from the aircraft and died" which leaves some rather unpleasant images in my mind. Was death instantaneous? Which bits of the body were ejected? Was an arm ripped off? It is only much later that we discover "Riordan died after being admitted to a local hospital for treatment". The intro should incorporate something of that.
2. Aircraft; "The aircraft involved, manufactured in 2000 by Boeing, was a Boeing 737-7H4..." Wow! A Boeing made by Boeing.
3. Aircraft; "...manufactured in 2000..." and "Delivered to Southwest Airlines on July 7, 2000," It would be notable if there was a lag between these dates and the years were different, but otherwise the year only needs mentioning once.
4. Aircraft; "with manufacturer's serial number 27880, fuselage line number 601". And how are these numbers relevant?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@WendlingCrusader: Thank you for these suggestions. I made a few changes. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ivebeenhacked, do you intend to continue improving this article to meet the GA criteria? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I sent you a message on your talk page saying that I'll be free and start dropping new comments on 21 May. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. No worries then. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Ivebeenhacked: Just a reminder ping about this. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • This review has been in progress for close to a month; the nominator has been active since 21 May/Z1720's ping but has not responded. I'm thus failing this GAN for lack of activity. Best of luck in the future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2026 (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.