Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Korean Air Lines Flight 007/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:58, 9 May 2009 [1].

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 edit

Nominator(s): Bert Schlossberg (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Korean Air Lines Flight 007/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because it is for the most part demonstrably as well as factually correct, and possessing good indicators for further research on the divergent understandings on the shootdown of KAL 007. The article exhibits very capable treatment that is non polarizing of a controversial and potentially explosive subjectBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It seems the references need some cleaning up

Do references like 8 and 9 have page numbers?

I'm not sure if reference 5 is formatted correctly (pages, spaces, etc.) Could you look and see if it's written correctly?

Some refs like 13 and 15 use "pg". This should be changed for consistency with the rest of the article.

Some refs like 12 and 49 need periods and spaces in regard to the page numbers.

Reference 14 needs the regular template with more information.

I suggest you look at all references at the bottom of the page to make sure there is nothing that needs fixing. Or, if you want, I can point out all problems later. Mm40 (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fix these 3 disambiguation links. Mm40 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
Per the MOS, titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
There are bare urls in the references that should be formatted with link titles.
There are books references in the footnotes without page numbers (including Sputnik, and Kleiner, there are many others)
Consistency on use of p. or p or pg etc.
Please alphabetize the references. right now the Journals and Online sources sections are out of alphabetical order, making it more difficult to find the sources from the footnotes.
Current 9 (Kilroy) is referring to an online database, which is currently listed in the books section? What makes this a reliable source?
http://www.planesafe.org/books/desiredtrack.shtml deadlinks
Current ref 27 (CBS' "60 Minutes" interview, Jan. 3, 1983) isn't given in the references that I can find.
Jean Kirkpatrick's Address to the United Nations". New York Times. 2983-09-07. pp. 15 Do you mean 1983 rather than 2983?
What makes the following reliable sources?
Current ref 46 (Uriel Rosenthal...) needs a page number
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
Current ref 72 (The Current Digest of the Soviet Press) I can't find any information on this source in the references
Current ref 124 (Associated press and a date) isn't helpful with finding the exact source, as the AP puts out a LOT of information per day
This book http://books.google.com/books?id=CcMeKQAACAAJ was originally published by http://www2.xlibris.com/, a slef publishing book company. What makes it reliable?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The links to the notes section should read "Note 1" not "Notes 1".
"departed for Seoul at 13:00 UTC (4:00 AM Alaska Time) on August 31, 1983." Give the actual Alaskan time first with the UTC in parentheses. Also, it is not consistent with UTC and GMT.
It's not standard to say (Photos of passengers[14]). There seems to be links to photos for other things, but they are in the notes. Also, that cite is a bare reference and needs to be in a template. Ref 61 and 117 also need to be formatted.
There is inconsistency in measurements. Sometimes it is kilometer (mi) and sometimes mile (km).
There is also inconsistency in date styles: 8 September 1983 vs. September 8, 1983. Pick one and use it throughout the article. There is mostly Month-Day, but there are a few Day-Month scattered in there.
Also check periods. You had UN and U.N. in the same sentence. U.S.S.R. vs. USSR.

Overall, this is a very excellent article! It was really informative and is well referenced. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any better image than File:KAL007747-2.png to use as your lead image? This is a very strange image – what's with the bright circle around the nose, for example, or the fact that the white areas of the aircraft are shaded orange? – iride scent 15:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the other circles (less visible than the one on the nose) I'm guessing it's a lens flare effect. --Golbez (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an artist's rendition, not a photo. I don't know what the plume (?) in back of the plane is meant to be. It could be construed as a flame. If so, the orange tinted white of the aircraft may be meant to be the reflection of the flame. Just a note - ICAO analysis indicates that no wreckage presented as associated with KAL 007 shows burn marks. I'm for getting a better lead imageBert Schlossberg (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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