Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007/GA3

Ok, let's try this again :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead looks good.

First section: I'd put the date of departure up with the time of departure, especially since it differs from the date the aircraft was shot down.

Done

Under the section "Flight deviation from assigned route" the following sentences appear: According to the ICAO, the autopilot was not operating in INS mode for one of two reasons: the autopilot was not switched to INS mode by the crew (shortly after Cairn Mountain). Alternatively, INS mode was selected by the crew, but the aircraft had already deviated off track by more than the 7.5 nautical miles (13.9 km) tolerance permitted for the inertial navigation computer to activate. I think that construction calls for an either/or clause following it, or drop the colon.

Done

There are lots of small sentence structure issues, as is to be expected with such a long article. It needs copy-editing, but is OK for the "reasonably well-written" standard of GA.

If you point them out, will happily address...

Lots of references and sources, not all of which I can read. Still, the links of the online sources are good, and seem to relate to the purpose for which they're used, so generally OK here. Also, generally a good enough job with backing up the POV sources with a more neutral one.

The tone gets a little loose towards the end. For example, in the Aftermath section we see: "NATO had decided, under the impetus of the Reagan administration, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 6–10 minutes striking distance from Moscow. Support for the deployment was wavering and it looked doubful that it would be carried out. However when the Soviet Union shot down Flight 007, the U.S. was able to galvanize enough support at home and abroad to enable the deployment to go ahead." Unfortunately, not a citation in sight.

Have sorted the refs - do you think the sentences need work too?

Reference 125 needs an article title. Similarly, 127 needs something beyond "?" Baltimore Sun if it's going to stay in the article.

Done

I'm not quite sure what to make of the "Timeline for attack" = it just appears to me as a box with no content. Should I be able to see something here? See below. Anyway, on hold for now, but I have every reason to think it can make GA this time. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the timeline box again. I have a script killer that kept me from viewing it; I can expand the box now. And I have questions. First of course are the usual OR questions. I have no real problem on this score provided that all sources are reliable and all have time stamps. I would like a cite to each source in the color key, however, and follow up cites for commentary (for example, when it say the the fighter jet changed position, we should cite to the source that let's us conclude this). I would also consider calling this section something like "Timeline of the final flight of 007" or "Timeline of flight and downing of 007" my point being that it isn't JUST the attack.

Renamed and citations added.

This is a long article, I'll read it through again later and will probably have more comments. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've completely re-read the article after taking a break from it. There are a few things that I noticed on this reading. *:First, please list this article with WP:GOCE. Make it clear that it's a GAN on hold, and someone probably will get to it quickly. I only recently learned of this project or I would have recommended it earlier.

Listed, thanks for the tip.

• Next, at line 181 Major Osipovich appears with no introduction. Do we know his first name? and which plane he piloted? I'm able to infer the information as I keep reading, but it isn't obvious at first.

Fixed

• On this reading, the "Pain and Suffering" section really jumped out at me as disrupting the follow of the article. Why does this have its own section? Obviously its important to the civil case, but the civil case is only mentioned a couple of times in the article. Can't this information be merged into the following section without calling so much attention to it?

I think this may originate from the weight that the Rescue007 theory places on it. Happy to merge.

• In the investigations section, is there support for the position that the NTSB investigation v. ICAO report mattered? What power would the NTSB, as a U.S. agency, have had to subpoena foreign governments anyway? And, who it "Johnson" (listed as a commentator) and we should we care?

They would have been able to subpoena US military and civilian radar data and tapes, which may have been embaressing for the US if it showed that the flight was being tracked in realtime but not warned. Will try to reword.

• Finally, I'm not sure I like the "Interim events" section. It reads more like a magazine article than one for an encyclopedia. It seems that if there are important interim events, we should explicitly mention them in the prose. This more of a personal quibble, though, I wouldn't hold up GA over it.

Don't like it either - converted to prose.

• Reference 19 has one of those question marks instead of a title.

Bert, this is one of yours - do you have the full reference please, otherwise it will be removed.

Overall though, I think the changes to the article certainly have improved it. If the copy editors can get to it, I think you'll be most of the way there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the additional comments. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave it another reading tonight, and I'm comfortable that it meets the criteria. Obviously a tremendous amount of work went into this article, my thanks to all for their efforts. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review this long article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)