Talk:Ural Airlines Flight 178

Destination

As Crimeas status is disputed, I changed the destination to be in Crimea (neither Ukraine nor Russia). Then that dispute can hopefully be left out of the article. -- 188.151.51.78 (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

See also section

I've removed two accidents caused by ice ingestion. IMvHO, the three accidents now left are sufficient. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Content removed from reactions

Per WP:BRD, starting a discussion here. Why should that information be included? Keep in mind that the subject of this article is an airplane crash, not some controversial Ukrainian website... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• You seem to have no idea what's going on between Ukraine and Russia and Crimea and all, if you think it is irrelevant. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I am aware of the disputes between Russia and Ukraine, but they have nothing to do with this article... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes it has immediately to do with the article: all world praises the pilots, while Ukraine lists them on the witch-hunt website. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not our problem, (your argument appears to be WP:SYNTH at best) and thus we are in no need to report it (WP:NOTNEWS), especially when it shines by it's lack of significant mention in more sources (the website of the Ukrainian organization is WP:PRIMARY and doesn't warrant it's POV being reported, and the Russian source only has a short story on the matter - so we should avoid mentioning it so as not to give it WP:UNDUE weight). In any case, when it is not crucial to the subject (and, in this case, it clearly has no significant impact), it is better to avoid any statements which are controversial, even more so when their origin is WP:FRINGE. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Edit: see also the above section about "Destination" - I think that is a right way to proceed, and we should keep the Crimea dispute ("broadly construed") out of this article (especially since the link is rather tenuous... merely because the flight was headed to Crimea does not suddenly make this a part of the conflict). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY was used here to confirm the fact reported in in secondary source. Yes is is a short, but glaring story, widely circulated in Rusian media. Yes, it is crucial for subject: the crew is under the threat in a whole country. FYI some journalists were killed after landing in Mirotvorets, while other people were severely harassed by ukronazis. And there is no controversy: a plain fact readers can judge for themselves. Yes, merely because the flight was headed to Crimea makes it a violation of Ukrainian law; moreover, I remember a Russian ship or two were seized because among its destinations were Crimean ports, or something. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Hell, this was reported even by BBC! (ref added). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The crew being "under threat in a whole country" is relevant to the crew, but not to the flight. The BBC gives it a short paragraph. The talk about "ukronazis" doesn't go in the article in any case, so while your opinion has been politely noted, it is not necessary. I have changed what is in the article to match better with the BBC article (since that is an truly independent source which can be trusted for stuff like this)... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

is relevant to the crew, but not to the flight -- bullshit. Let's delete the section "Crew", then. BBC? Independent? It was long time ago when BBC was a true example if true journalism. Now it is full of fake news and political bias. No further disagreement, anyway. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands is acceptable. We report good, and bad, on both sides, without bias for or against, but neutrally. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

• UralAirlines Crash.jpg
• UralAirlines Scrapped (2).jpg
• UralAirlines Scrapped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ural Airlines Flight 178/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: RandomInfinity17 (talk · contribs) 02:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 04:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am RecycledPixels. I will review this article over the next few days. I usually take the review in several steps, and not normally in order. Please don't respond or edit this GA review page until I've completed item #7, the "overall assessment" field at the end, which is my sign that I have completed my steps, the ball is in your court, and I will wait for you to respond. That way we won't be disrupting each other with edit conflicts during this process. I will also ping you to let you know I have finished my part. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Clear and concise This is a pretty broad definition that is generally considered to mean, "is it understandable?" The article passes this standard, although it really needs an extensive copy edit. There are a lot of convoluted statements that I think can be expressed more clearly than they are at the moment. Part of the problem is that there is a lot of passive voice use in the article, which makes it more difficult for a reader to understand WHO did WHAT, but other issues are word choice that I think could use some polishing. Not to worry, though, because these comments exceed what I consider the GA standard of "clear and concise" to be. However, you'll need to iron this out if you ever have a goal is to take it beyond GA, which I hope you do because it is a valuable topic with plenty of reliable sources. Understandable to a broad audience Marginally passes, although I'd rather see less jargon in the "Accident" and "Investigation" sections, which is tricky to do when your sources are written for a technical audience. A particular example would be pretty much most of the third paragraph of the "Accident" section, after the third sentence. Imagine reading the article out loud to a twelve-year-old to explain the incident. Would they understand what was going on in any of that section? Spelling and grammar issues: Due the resulting loss of thrust and improper actions by the flight crew should be "Due to..." All 233 occupants survived the accident although 28 suffered injuries, 3 of them serious missing comma after "accident" In the immediate aftermath of the accident, the crew praised for managing to land and evacuate the aircraft without any fatalities. missing "were" The flight crew were awarded Hero of the Russian Federation, Russia's highest civilian honor, and the cabin crew were given the Order of Courage. "Crew" is a singular noun, and the verbs being used are plural. However, despite International Civil Aviation Organization regulations stipulating a final report any aviation accident be published as soon as possible Word or words left out. The captain and pilot-in-command was 41-year-old Damir Yusupov [ru; pl] who graduated from the Buguruslan Flight School of Civil Aviation [ru], in Buguruslan, Russia, in 2013 missing comma after the pilot's name. He also received a degree in Air Navigation from the Ulyanovsk Institute of Civil Aviation, in Ulyanovsk, Russia. no need to capitalize the type of the degree received. The first officer and second-in-command was 23-year-old Georgy Murzin [ru; pl] who also graduated from the Buguruslan Flight School of Civil Aviation, in 2017. no need for comma before "in 2017" They also discussed how they would only address items The most recent noun mentioned was the birds, but the pronoun "they" is supposed to refer to the pilots, so needs clarification. At 6:05, the crew received clearance to push back from their position on the apron unclear, because the crew was not on the apron, and it was the aircraft that was going to be pushed back. After they were given clearance to enter the runway at 6:11 The use of "they" in this instance is unclear. Yusupov moved his side-stick back to start climbing, although it took four seconds for the aircraft to liftoff, which it did at an airspeed of 181 kn (335 km/h), significantly higher than the calculated V2 speed. Run-on sentence. However, he did not include "climb," the standard phrase that Yusupov was expecting and would have alerted him to raise the landing gear. grammatically incorrect unless you change "and would have alerted" to "that would have alerted". Initially, he did not use the rudder pedals Unclear pronoun use, because you had been talking about the aircraft's nose, the airspeed, the reduced thrust, and the left engine since the last time you'd mentioned Yusupov. In reaction, Yusupov pulled up on his side-stick and the aircraft's pitched varied between 8.5° and 13° nose up Grammar. The failure for Murzin to properly call out "Positive climb" Grammar. were complete and he could focus his attention to the ECAM focus his attention on the ECAM. The M. M. Gromov Flight Institute, which operated at the airport, had repeatedly wrote to city authorities in Zhukovsky and Ramenskoe Grammar. Between 5:30 and 5:50 on the day of the accident, the airport director stated to the MAK conducted a runway inspection and stated Grammar. However, the area where he stated inspection was conducted was the same area where the crew noticed birds during taxiing and where bird struck the plane. Grammar or spelling. At Ural Airlines, the flight operation manual (FOM) stated that pre-flight perpetrations must include discussions on ornithological risks Spelling. The constant transmissions lead to crews at Zhukovsky to become accustomed to it, Grammar or spelling. The MAK concluded that the presence of birds at Zhukovsky Airport, which was the result of a large amount sites that attracted birds Missing word. Among the safety recommendations included stricter guidelines on bird control Grammar. I tried to point out everything I came across during my readings, but there may be more.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MOS:LEAD issues: Per MOS:LEADREL, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. Is the fact that the MAK released the final report on Telegram instead of its website so vital to the understanding of this accident that it warrants being the third paragraph of the lead? MOS:LAYOUT issues: No concerns MOS:WTW issues: Per MOS:WEASEL, you should avoid stating that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. The statement Comparisons were made to the 2009 accident of US Airways Flight 1549 never says WHO said that, in the lead section or the body section. That's another example of the pitfalls of writing in the passive voice. MOS:WAF and MOS:EMBED issues: Do not apply to this article
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citation 5 (Orenburzhie.ru) is geoblocked and/or a dead link, please provide archive link (22 Sep 2020 seems to work ok). Citation 21 (Meduza) needs author information (listed at the bottom of the article). Citation 84 (FlightGlobal) needs access date because web sources can change, so we need to know on what date you looked at that site and saw the information you cited. Citation 85 (RBK Group) needs authors (listed at the bottom of the article). Citation 90 (FlightGlobal) needs date accessed. Citation 93 (Chita.ru) needs author information (listed at the bottom of the article). What statement is citation #2 (CFM International) supporting in the Aircraft subsection of the Background section?
	2b. 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).	I performed a check of all citations that appear in the "Background" section as well as the first two paragraphs of the "Accident" section. A total of 20 citations appear, which represents approximately 18% of the 108 total citations that appear in the article. For the accident report citations, the page numbers in the Russian-language report do not correspond to the page numbers in the English-language report, so I used section numbers, images, and page layouts in the Russian-language report to identify the corresponding pages in the English translation, and used the English version to perform fact checks. There were two minor issues that I encountered: Crew and passengers section The first officer and second-in-command was 23-year-old Georgy Murzin [ru; pl] who also graduated from the Buguruslan Flight School of Civil Aviation, in 2017 is cited to orenburzhie.ru, which does not mention his date of graduation from flight school. However, the Tass article cited in the paragraph about Yusupov does, as well as the accident report. Accident section Simultaneously, several gulls—25–30 according to Yusupov's estimation[16]—were ingested by the engines. The placement of the citation in the middle of the sentence is a bit odd, but citation 16 (MAK p. 153) doesn't support the statement. Yusupov said he saw a flock of 25-30 birds move left to right across the aircraft's course, but he did not say that all 25-30 had been ingested by the engines and he also mentioned impact sounds against the fuselage which would support an assumption that he didn't think all 25-30 birds were ingested.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I have not found any issues with what I consider to be original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None of the sections checked in detail showed signs of close paraphrasing or copyright violations. Automated check also performed, no concerns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The minimum content that I expect to find in a comprehensive aviation accident article is a description of the accident, the immediate aftermath, the investigative process, and the result of the investigation. It should also contain details about the aircraft, details about the passengers and crew, and some background information about the flight, and these can be brief. This article covers all the major aspects of this event that I would expect to find in a comprehensive article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The accident report contains a ton of well-cited information, but some of the information in this article tends to drift into "too much information" territory. For example, the description of the push-back process with exact times the engines were started and which taxiways the aircraft used weren't factors in the big picture. Same thing with some of the routine aspects of the takeoff, such as the exact second the takeoff clearance was given, and how many seconds it took for the nose to liftoff. Did the use of flex temp play a factor in the accident? It might have because different settings may have changed the point of liftoff, but the relevance isn't obvious. Is it important to know the aircraft's airspeed at the time Yusupov called out, "Come on, fly past, bird" etc., or would it be sufficient to say something like "as the aircraft accelerated down the runway"? There is a ton of detail here, but I get distracted from the important aspects when there is too much detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I didn't think I'd have any issues with neutrality in an aviation accident article, and I've had to think about it a while, but I have a problem with the neutrality of the last paragraph of the "Reactions" section, and the inclusion of what appears to be a private Ukrainian doxing site's opinions. Does any of that information improve the reader's understanding of the crash? The criticism of the MAK's release of the final report via Telegram also seems oddly critical without giving reason. Wikipedia calling out the MAK for doing it wrong is very different from relevant agencies and organizations calling out the release of the report via Telegram, but there's no mention of that anywhere. The first three paragraphs of the "Investigation" section currently read as Wikipedia expressing criticism about the actions of the flight crew. After mentioning that MAK conducted the investigation into the accident, helped by BEA and AAIB, the next section starts out with "The crew did not apply proper procedures..." and continues to list everything the crew did wrong, rather than stating that when the MAK released its report, the report said all these things. This is a major issue. The later paragraphs are better, but it would be better if the report was clearly identified as the issues that were raised by the MAK.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Since the major article revision on 21 April, edits to the article have been maintenance-related and uncontroversial.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are appropriately and plausibly tagged with copyright status. I have to AGF one of the images, "Wreckage of Ural Airlines Flight 178 (3).jpg", because it is attributed to the website of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, but the source link is to Aviation Safety Network. I poked around the Internet Archives of the mchs.gov.ru site and I can't find any photos of any plane crashes when I searched around August 2019 or July 2021 when the image was uploaded, so I'll need to trust that the caption on the ASN site is accurate. I didn't spend more than 15 minutes searching. If this article ever went up for FAC, I'd expect this to be a sticking point unless the original publication location for this photo can be verified.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'm not sure what the image "Ural Airlines Flight 178 autopilot disconnection.jpg" is trying to show me with the caption "Recreation of flight parameters when the autopilot disconnected". If there is something in particular I should be paying attention to, it should be identified in the caption. If the image is only of marginal relevance, it should be removed. The alt text on that image contains more information, but still does not help me understand the relevance of the image. Likewise, I think the caption "Overview of the accident site: can use a slightly expanded caption because all of the tags in the image are in Russian and I don't know what any of the points mean. (The image description on commons appears to have translations). The caption of the neighborhood dump has a mention "with several gulls on top" but I can't make that out from the image, probably because of resolution issues. How about something along the line of identifying the photo as the neighborhood dump and stating something along the line of it had had a problem with attracting gulls to the area, or something like that?
	7. Overall assessment.	@RandomInfinity17: Not yet. Don't be discouraged by the number of red minus marks, I really don't feel like there is a lot of work that needs to be done to meet the GA standard, most of the items I've pointed out should be pretty straightforward to resolve. The neutrality issue is probably the biggest issue I have with it, and will probably take the most work. I'm happy to place this nomination on hold to give you time to make changes, then when you're done, ping me and I'll see how it's coming along. Even though I like this table format of GA review because it keeps me focused on the narrow parameters of what the criteria of what a GA article is, and I think it does a pretty good job of teaching and explaining the GA criteria to nominators, the complexity of wiki markup sometimes makes responding to my comments tends to be a bit of a pain. What has worked in the past is to add your responses in italics within the table immediately after my comments, or just making a new section below this table. I've taken a swing at least at making my reviews easier to respond to with a different template format, but I don't know where I left off because I've lost it in my piles of unfinished articles. If you strongly disagree with my review and feel like I'm completely out in space, or you don't think you'll have to get back to this in a decent amount of time, just let me know and I can quickfail it so you can renominate it any time you're ready. RecycledPixels (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Additional suggestions that not part of the GA criteria. Whether or not these are implemented will not affect whether this article passes or fails the GA nomination.

• Some issues with false precision with the {{convert}} templates, such as "after the ingestion of a medium-sized bird 1.5 lb (0.68 kg)", "One of the birds ingested into the left engine was considered large, with a weight of above 2.5 lb (1.1 kg)", and "4,950 m (16,240 ft) from the end of Runway 12". See Help:Convert#Rounding
• Be consistent with conversions. Metric->imperial (most likely) or imperial->metric throughout the article.
• Archive links to web citations are great to have to prevent link rot. It's pretty simple to do, just go to https://web.archive.org/ , enter the URL in the "Save Page Now" field, and the Wayback Machine will do most of the rest of the work. Then add the citation template fields archive-url=, archive-date=, and url-status=live to the citation templates. That helps protect the article when some bored kid comes long five years from now and maliciously changes facts that we can't verify from the original source.
• In the first paragraph of the "Accident" section, clarify that when Yusupov said they would only address ECAM issues after 400 ft., that it refers to 400 ft. above ground level, not 400 ft. altitude.

All (specific) comments in 1a have been addressed except for The failure for Murzin to properly call out "Positive climb". I don't see the grammar error here, may you please be more specific? RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The complete sentence is The failure for Murzin to properly call out "Positive climb" resulted in Yusupov's failure to raise the gear, and in later interviews to the MAK, he said he never heard Murzin call out "Climb". "The failure FOR x TO y" is grammatically incorrect. You would write, "Murzin's failure to properly call out POSITIVE CLIMB resulted in ... " (grammatically correct, simpler and clearer) or you could write "The improper call out of POSITIVE CLIMB resulted in... " (less desirable because it hides who made the improper call) or "The failure of (something) resulted in..." or other variations that use Murzin as the subject of the sentence rather than Murzin's failure to follow correct procedures. There are also some "he" pronouns later in that sentence that could use clarification, since you've mentioned two people, but I think that second item is more of a stylistic preference than a grammatical error that runs up against Criteria 1a. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Advise taken. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Second concern in 1b addressed, but I do think it is valuable for the reader to know how the results of the report were made public. The fact that the previous sentence says "the last update to the investigation on the MAK website was an interim statement made one year after the accident" makes the reader wonder why the next paragraph is about the results of the supposedly never-released investigation. Bringing up the fact that it was posted on Telegram resolves this question. But feel free to explain your argument more. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The article in its current form is 4,864 words. The lead section is 405 words, and the three sentences in the lead about the report is 71 of those 405 words (18%). The four sentences about this in the body of the article total 124 words (3% of the body's 4,459 words). Even if this isn't a neutrality issue, you're running up against MOS:LEADREL, "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead section and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy."

In addition to that, there's still the issue of neutrality of that I brought up under criteria 4. The whole section appears to be based on the September 7, 2022 Meduza article. That article quotes an anonymous source from within Rosaviatsiya that says that MAK's process is to first release the report to the airline and the regulator, allow the airlines to make changes to their policies and allow the regulator to make new policies, and only then publish the report for the public. That source also adds that they are sure that the report will be published on the website, and that it's just a matter of time. The leaked document is dated August 16, 2022, so less than a month before the Meduza article was published. Much of the vocal criticism appears to be based on statements by aviation journalist Andrei Menshenin. Who is he? Maybe he's a really prominent subject matter expert, and maybe he's just a blogger with an axe to grind, I don't know. On the other hand, today, the mak-iac.org website still lists the accident as "investigation ongoing", so about what I'd expect and not a good look for them. In order to resolve my neutrality concern, I'd like to see more (recent if possible) reporting by reliable sources that the failure to officially release the report is worthy of note, and not just "how it's always been done" because the report could embarrass certain prominent political figures who had gushingly praised the pilots in the aftermath. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

For the comment about the lead, I just removed the entire paragraph about the report not being published; too much weight given to it. As for the concerns about neutrality, I'll probably get to this after finishing my first round of comments on the Western 636 GA. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

All comments in 2a addressed RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

All comments in 2b addressed RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

3b addressed, but feel free to point out any other details you think need addressing (aside from paragraph 3 of accident, I will get to that soon). RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

First point of 4 addressed; paragraph removed. As for the second you point you brought up, I don't know how the phrase it better. I added an extra sentence on why it might have been never officially published, but I don't know if it is enough. For the third point, I started to add what you were looking for, but I will probably add more. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I discussed this further in the 1b section above. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

All comments in 6b addressed. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Additional suggestion 1, 2, and 4 implemented. For 2, I used imperial because it is the unit the MAK used in their investigation and what is used in aviation generally. I might add archive links to everything at some later on, but probably not now. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that Russian aviation had switched to imperial units from metric. I came across comments about that when I was looking up the issue about the release of the accident report. What could go wrong? RecycledPixels (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I think I would like this review to be placed on hold to give me time to address understandability and neutrality. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 01:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've put it on hold. I try to stay as hands-off as possible through this part of the process as possible, so when you're ready for me to take another look at it, please ping me. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@RecycledPixels: I've attempted my best to respond to comments on understandability and neutrality, but it still needs a look over. I am particularly struggling to find a way to make the "final report" section more neutral. On one hand, the final report being leaked on Telegram is a fact and is a key part of this accident that should be in the article. On the other hand, very few sources seem to make note of this. Besides the Meduza article, the "best" source I've been able to find is this article, but I'm not convinced on its reliability. For one, it gets the translator's name wrong (it's Kyra, not Kara). But more importantly, it is based off the translator's Medium article, which a) as well researched as it is, it is still an unreliable source and b) the author has requested that her work should not be used for Wikipedia articles. Besides that, if you have any more concerns on grammar, understandability, and neutrality, let me know what specially to fix. Also, what is your opinion of TASS being used as a source in background (Ref2) and reactions (Ref43). When I was working on this article, I saw that TASS was marked as an generally unreliable source, but I still used it as it is citing some statements that are mostly uncontroversial and supported by other sources, but what are your thoughts? RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 04:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I rolled my eyes a bit when I saw that, but when I looked deeper into WP:TASS, I was left with the impression that the WP consensus is that TASS should only be used as a source for things that the Russian government said or said it did. Looking at the 2022 RFC on which that is based, you can see that most of that discussion centers around TASS's role in spreading misinformation and propaganda related to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and several make mention of how the news agency "used to be just biased, now it's pure lies" or variants like that, and some commenters made mention that various news agencies have cut ties with TASS because of recent false information, again, related to Ukraine. Left unsaid in that whole discussion is what should be done about older TASS articles that predate 2022. Looking at the previous RFC, in 2019, it was a discussion that attracted less participation, and was also heavily weighted around TASS's coverage of events in Ukraine, Crimea, and Donbass. So, the RFC concluded that the reliability of TASS varies on the content, and anything that the Russian Government has an interest in shaping the narrative is less likely to be reliable. Keeping in mind that WP:TASS is just a pointer to a handy list that summarizes past discussions on the reliable source noticeboard, I think that you could make the argument that a 2019 TASS article about the names of the pilots and where they went to school is pretty uncontroversial enough. And from what I feel I know about the person who put that tag there, I think they'd accept such an argument if it was placed in that context. But that won't stop the next person a year from now from rubber-stamping the article with the tag again, or just deleting the statements that are referenced to TASS, citing WP:TASS. So, you could start a new RFC on the reliability of TASS and argue that older TASS articles that are uncontroversial in nature should be allowed as sources (sounds like a real pain in the tail), or you could just find replacements for TASS in this article. Personally, I don't enjoy wasting my time arguing with people with strongly-held beliefs about what should and should not be deleted unless it's really necessary, so I'd go with the replacement option, or, failing that, delete the content that can't be supported with anything that is only sourced to TASS. Note that the fact that Putin awarded the title of the Heroes of Russia to the pilots is sourced to TASS, and meets the current restriction of WP:TASS because it's something the Russian Government did or said it did (even though it probably wishes it hadn't, which is another good reason to have an archive link). RecycledPixels (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as the neutrality of the final report goes, the key thing I see in your statement is On one hand, the final report being leaked on Telegram is a fact and is a key part of this accident that should be in the article, but you note that very few sources seem to make note of this. (Avisure is an Australian aviation risk consultancy firm, by the way, not a reliable source) I think you can probably find reliable sources that state that the final report was leaked on Telegram. Here's another problem with passive voice in the article. The text Rather than being officially published by the MAK, the final report was posted by several Telegram channels in August 2022. The article does not identify who posted the final report on Telegram. In my brief searches, I got the impression that the final report was leaked to telegram, not officially "posted" by MAK. So, is this a question of MAK publishing the final report in the wrong venue, or is it an issue of the MAK not publishing the final report at all? Is the lack of a publicly-available final report that is politically inconvenient especially noteworthy in Russia? Personally, I'm not holding my breath for a report of the 2023 Wagner Group plane crash "in-flight breakup" to be released. It would be neutral to state (with reliable sources) that the final report was never published, and that the MAK does not always publicly release its final reports (again with sources), but that a leaked copy of what is claimed to be the final report was made available by anonymous sources on Telegram. As a personal note, I encountered a similar issue when I was working on the Aeroméxico Connect Flight 2431 article, which was my first aviation accident article. The Aviation Herald writeup on this accident made a big deal with bold text about the fact that the final report was only released in Spanish, and that they were really supposed to release it in English as well. When I tried to find other reliable sources of agencies and organizations complaining about this, I came up empty, so I left the Spanish-only statements out of the final article. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Wait. b) the author has requested that her work should not be used for Wikipedia articles. When/where was this? I wasn't aware of that. I used her as a source for some items in an article before, and was reverted because of WP:MEDIUM, but didn't feel like fighting that battle then even though I felt she qualified as a subject matter expert. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I've replaced the TASS source in the background with other sources that verify the same information (Orenburzhie and the MAK both contain the same information). I've also slightly reworded the final report section with your suggestions; will do a more extensive source check and re-word tomorrow. She said that her work (and Medium in general) should not be used as a Wikipedia source in a discord server, not anywhere officially online, I should've clarified that. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@RandomInfinity17: Checking in. Are you ready for me to take another look at the article, or are you still working on this? RecycledPixels (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I think so. I have removed some passive voice from the article and slightly expanded on the final report (although I was only able to find one additional source, so if you still think there are problems with neutrality or sourcing, I will probably just remove the paragraph for the time being). Another user also refined the article a lot (thanks!), so you might want to look over that. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Second review

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:

   Article is clear and concise, broadly defined. The article has received a considerable amount of copyediting since the first review, and the spelling and grammar issues outlined in that review have been removed. I still see some technical language that a general audience may struggle to understand, but it is generally understandable. I made a couple of trivial edits to the article while performing this review to address simple copy edits.

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

   MOS:LEADREL concerns identified in the first review have been addressed. Still no issues with MOS:LAYOUT. MOS:WEASEL concern with the comparisons to the US Airways Flight 1549 are addressed in the body by stating that the comparisons were made on social media, which sufficiently addresses the context. The lead section statement about the comparison still has a vague "comparisons were made..." statement, but since it is expanded upon in the body this is no longer a concern, merely a suggestion. MOS:WAF and MOS:EMBED still do not apply.

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:

   Authors, archive links and access dates have been added to citations where needed.

   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):

   I performed a spot check of references in the first review. That turned up two minor issues, which have been addressed. The overall sense from that spot-check was that references are being accurately reflected in the article, so I do not feel that there is a need to perform additional spot checking.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research issues identified in either review.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No concerns identified in the first review; I did not perform additional spot checking of sources in this review that could have identified undiscovered issues. My overall sense from the first review was that the article has been written with an awareness of copyright and plagiarism concerns, and that such issues are not present in this article.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Article is still comprehensive, covering all of the major topics I would expect to find in an aviation accident article.

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

   The amount of unrelated and trivial information has been sufficiently reduced in the article. There is still a some, but not enough to significantly distract from the reader's understanding of the main points.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   We have discussed the yhe criticism of the MAK's release of the report on telegram in the original review as well as our discussions in the sections following. The text of the article has been adjusted to the point where the "finger-wagging" tone has been eliminated, and the article is more factual in nature with less unsupported criticism of the MAK. I made a sufficiently minor adjustment to the text, clarifying that anonymous sources released the report on several Telegram channels, rather than the actual Telegram channels releasing the report as well as resolving an "as of" concern.

5. Is it stable?

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

   No edit warring on the article. An uninvolved editor placed an appropriate "unreliable source" tag on the article during the course of this GA review, and the nominator replaced that source with better sources.

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:

   No copyright concerns on images.

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

   Autopilot disconnection image with unclear relevance has been removed. Captions have been improved.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article has improved substantially, passing.

@RandomInfinity17: Article has improved substantially, no remaining issues, well done. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)