Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC) .

Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

Notified: Crum375, Srich32977, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Brazil

Review section

As noted earlier this month by Aviationwikiflight, this 2009 FA has significant sourcing problems.

Inconsistent formatting is the smallest problem. Then, there are large amounts of uncited material throughout the article. Finally, and most seriously, the article is sourced near-entirely to news reports, when there are many high-quality academic studies the article could draw upon.

In summary, the article is far away from meeting FA criteria 1c) and 2c). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not very active in the FA field, I will try to add the missing references on the article. Please ping me if I forget. Cattos ^💭 21:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cathodography: Are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: All of the then-uncited material are now cited. There wasn't anything too significant in Google scholar, as almost all of the missing citations were from the NTSB report. Cattos ^💭 13:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a link to scholarly articles in English. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's far from FA. It currently strings together contemporary sources instead of using secondary analysis. I happened across this discussion while looking over FAs that have low quality sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Looking at the article history, it seems like only a few sources have been added to the article since this was opened, and there are many more higher-quality sources that are not used in the article that should be considered. Z1720 (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.