Talk:Western Air Lines Flight 34/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: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 17:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Warriorglance (talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I will be taking this article for review, you can expect my comments in a couple of days as I go over different sections. Warriorglance(talk to me) 13:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Initial Lookover

• Earwig Copyvio detects nothing.
• Nominator a major contributor
• Article stable.
• No citations in the lead
• Every paragraph has at least one citation.
• I suggest adding alt text to images if you want to bring the article to higher standard like FA. Not a criterion for GA though.

  Alt text added. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• The aircraft crashed into the ground at a high rate of speed, leaving a five-foot deep impact crater --- Dont you think mentioning the depth is too much detail for the lead?

  Removed that detail from the lead. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• and wreckage scattered and broken into tiny pieces ---> and widespread fragmentation of the wreckage --- Just a phrasing change I recommend. The previous sentence is a little informal.

  Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good other than this.

Background

• It was operated by Western Air Lines using one of the company's 40-passenger Convair CV-240 twin radial engine aircraft. --- This is again repeated in the Aircraft section, I suggest this to be removed because it goes well in the Aircraft section

  Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Other than this, it is well written.

Flight

Looks good!

Search

• The pilots had spotted colored fragments of debris on the ground, the largest of which was only three feet --- remove the "only" in the sentence. It is a personal opinion. Replace it with "approximate" or any neutral word

  Done. Replaced with "about." RecycledPixels (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Aircraft

I suggest moving this section after the section "Background". Because, well, this is also a background info of the aircraft and this would better align with the flow of the article.

I understand your suggestion. I usually roughly follow the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents) format. I also like to put the "aftermath" section higher up than that style guideline suggests, especially if there are rescues, searches, or other essential parts of the story about the accident. Detailed information about the aircraft is nice to have, but placing it too close to the start of the article is a bit of a distraction from the actual focus of the article, which is the accident itself. I try to include a couple of sentences in the background section about the aircraft type, and some information about the role that type of aircraft played in the airline's fleets or other important contextual information that is important to know when reading about the accident, but most of the minute details about the aircraft, like how many hours it had flown, what type of engines it has, etc., I tend to leave until later. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay then, we can continue according to your wish. I think the article is GA worthy enough right now according to the criteria. Congrats! Warriorglance(talk to me) 12:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Passengers and crew

Looks good!

Investigation

• That team arrived on March 1 ----> The team arrived on March 1

  Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• but it was limited by ----> but they were limited by

  Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Convair CV-240 was only certificated to fly in light icing conditions, but pilots experienced with the aircraft ----> Convair CV-240 was only certificated to fly in light icing conditions, however, pilots experienced with the aircraft

  Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good other than this. Checking sources next.

Source check

Y --- Apart from the fact that it is used 25 times in the article, its okay. Looks official and covers all information.

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

So far, looks good, Assuming good faith and moving on.

Final thoughts

@RecycledPixels: Please go through the review and share your thoughts Warriorglance(talk to me) 15:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Warriorglance: I have responded to your comments, take a look and see what you think or if you have additional thoughts. Thanks for taking a look at the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:03, 27 May 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.