Talk:Turkish Airlines Flight 1476

Good Article Nomination - On Hold, Pending Failure

(1) Is the article well written?

This article reads very easily and progresses in a completely logical fashion. The distinctions between sections divide very important components associated with the hijacking. Clearly, the article was written for the average user and even when talking about things like the "squawk code" used for hijackings, it was not hard to understand. Although this article is excellent, there are some areas for improvement. It should be noted the following are suggestions to improve the article, but not to fail this article as a "Good Article." The last point is the most important point to address.

These are areas for improvement:

• clearly note that this affair is still being processed by the judicial system,
• discuss the compensation issue more completely if there is more,
• and more clearly discuss the international reaction to this event.

(2) Is the article factually accurate and verifiable?

This article is phenomenally well referenced, albeit with articles from news sources. It appears quite verifiable, although the links for the news sources may change, which inevitably happens and always looks bad. So, there might have to be a more rigorous citation style used. I would employ the use of MLA here or some offshoot of MLA that can be used to track down the sources for this article.

(3) Is the article broad in its coverage?

This is a somewhat narrow incident, so it's understandable that this doesn't reference something obscenely broad, but at the same time there is one section that I would like to see here:

• a discussion of international reaction to this incident.

(4) Does the article follow the neutral point of view policy?

Yes, as far as I can tell.

(5) Is the article stable?

Given the history of the article so far, it appears this article is quite stable. My review here accepts the fact that this article has only been around for a short period of time and predicts this article will be stable in the long-term.

(6) Does the article use images appropriately?

This is the only major concern I have, and my major reason to put this article "on hold." It seems like the picture of the Pope is a bit frivolous, although not distracting. If this article were to be considered a "Good Article" it might include things like:

• a map detailing the flight path and area affected (very important),
• a photo of the hijacker,
• the logo of the airline involved,
• and/or a photo of the plane involved.

Review Conclusion - When the images section is fixed, the international reaction section is added, and the references use a more robust citation style, this article would definitely be an excellent Good Article submission. For now, until those things are changed, I will place this on hold, pending failure.

-Pg8p 10:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)pg8p

• Pg8p first thanks for your review. I've added 3 photos. Hijacker, map and plane with logo. I've question about cite problem. I checked current links and 4 of them seems to be broken. I replaced one of them. Then I've read Wikipedia:Citing sources What to do when a reference link "goes dead", part. There are some advices but i'm not sure what to do. I left a note on talk page and waiting. Can you explain MLA referencing. Is it necessary or is there another and better solution. I'm working on other issues. Once this reference thing finishes, i'll solve other things. --Ugur Basak 22:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the images go very well with this article. Well done! When I say the links may "go dead" I am talking about the possibility that the link may no longer point to material it currently points to. It's not a good way to effectively cite sources. However, I think it's reasonable for wikipedia.Pg8p 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• User:Ugur Basak asked me to look for citation style in this article. As far as I read, this article has conformed with WP:CITE, in particular follows footnote citation style, one of the three preferred WP citation style. There's nothing wrong to select this citation style. In fact, most of WP articles tend to follow this. Even more, the editors use preferred standardize citation templates, described in WP:CITET. Perhaps, I missed something from the GA reviewer, why does the citation look bad? And yes, the link to the news source may changed, but that's why the editors used Retrieved on field. So when the news server is replaced that makes broken links, it can still be verified through internet archives. — Indon (reply) — 10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Your point is valuable. Pg8p 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Responding more on the major concern of the GA reviewer about images. Per WP:WIAGA, criterion 6.b, the lack of images cannot prevent this article to be listed as Good Article. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Links were being used, so I reffered to 6A of WP:WIAGA, but this concern has been fixed since the new pictures work very well. Thanks for your input! Pg8p 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Turkish Airlines Flight 1476/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

1. Who/what is an "Amoto"?
2. Are there any free images available for the type of plane that was hijacked?
3. The last paragraph in the "Upon landing" section needs to be updated.
4. There are multiple dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive may be able to help.

This article covers the topic well. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Delisted

The article has been on hold for over a week and none of the issues were addressed. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. Once they are addressed, please renominate the article at WP:GAN. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

For future reference

Undated interview with pilot.[1] Location (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)