Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChristieBot (talk | contribs) at 14:20, 8 March 2023 (Transcluding GA review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:20, 8 March 2023 by ChristieBot (talk | contribs) (Transcluding GA review)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

2015 Shoreham Airshow crash is currently a Transport good article nominee. Nominated by Mjroots (talk) at 17:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

A news item involving 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 August 2015.

Misplaced Pages

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Aviation: Accidents

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sussex Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 22, 2017, August 22, 2020, and August 22, 2022.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Pilot negligence?

Would this be classed as pilot negligence? From what I’m seeing on the news it sure does sound like it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9vyzS5rp7M4

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a criminal trial underway to determine the answer to exactly that question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The defence case seems to rest on the claim that Hill was incapacitated, or at least impaired, by the g-forces of the manoeuvre. A brief news clip, like that ITV snippet, can't properly examine the exact timeline of those g-forces (which may or may not have been accurately recorded for later scrutiny) nor with the issue of whether the incapacitation was recklessly, or unintentionally, self-inflicted. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! Ill note in the summary that the pilot was incapacitated. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I doubt you have a source for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Well after getting round to this accident as I was doing ofhers earlier. The prosecution is still occurring as the pilot has appealed the courts judgment, so until then we’ll see what happens. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The trial is ongoing. The court has not yet made "a judgement". So he can't yet make any "appeal". Hill is giving evidence in his own defence. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know don’t worry I’m watching the news and reading the papers. I am keeping close watch on this accident in particular. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Update needed

The article currently says "Doubt was expressed about an airshow taking place at Shoreham in 2018". Can someone update that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I've had a little go, referencing the show's home page which is tumbleweed since 08/2017. Please feel free to improve on it but it's a start. DBaK (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong location referenced for airport and crash site.

There is No mention of Lancing even though the airport and the crash were both in lancing not Shoreham. Tried editing but removed. 86.16.123.86 (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Lancing is listed as the location of the airport in other wiki pages but not mentioned here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Brighton_City_Airport PrinceAndrewoops (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Trains2050 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): I am very happy with spelling and grammar. Prose is quite clear and does not use a lot of technical language and understandable to a broad audience. However can you please rephrase this line: Hill, the pilot, was thrown clear of the aircraft in his ejection seat, which was live when the aircraft departed from North Weald.

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
I run the article through checks. Both automatic and manual, chance of plagiarism is very low.
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:
On hold. Great article, please can you just change the line that I stated above. Trains2050 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@Trains2050: Reworded, and clarified that the live seat posed an additional danger to rescuers. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Thanks so much for making these changes! After reviewing the criteria, I am confident that no further changes are needed so I am passing this article. Thanks again for your cooperation during theis review. Have a great day! Trains2050 (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@Trains2050: and thank you for the review! Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Categories: