Wikipedia:Peer review/Munich air disaster/archive1

Munich air disaster

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is very close to reaching FA status now, but the way it was put together may have caused it to have a bit of a stop-start feel to it. I would copyedit it myself, but I've done a fair bit of work on this article, and a fresh pair of eyes would be useful. Thanks, – Pee Jay 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments: 1) You might want to consider renaming this article so that they conform with the naming convention adopted by both the WikiProject Disaster management and Aviation accident task force, which is <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. The 1960 Munich crash is already named this way (1960 Munich Convair 340 crash), so I took the liberty of changing the otheruses template, as it doesn't need to go through the redirect it was using. 2) You might want to reconsider listing all the victims, and include only the notable ones (ie, those with Wikiarticles). Typically, we don't list all the victims of crashes in crash articles because this is contrary to the guideline that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Other than those comments, congrats on producing a thorough article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that renaming this article is a good idea. All but one or two sources I've found refer to this event as the "Munich air disaster". – PeeJay 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - External sources don't necessarily guide how articles on Wikipedia are named, however. Naming conventions are adopted in order to provide a cohesive, consistent system across the encyclopedia. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But we do have to consider WP:COMMONNAME. When looking for this article, most people would search for "Munich air disaster". Some sources I've seen refer to it as the "Munich air crash", and I've also seen "Munich air disaster/crash" with the year added to either the beginning or the end, but "Munich air disaster" is the most common. – Pee Jay 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a compromise, I suggest that this article go through the RM process before it goes on to FAC. – Pee Jay 22:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offer

I would be willing to help as I understand the technical details of the accident quite well and have experience of trying to get an article through GA (but failing), I would have to be quite critical though. Remind me if I forget, I only just spotted the peer review request. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's anything about the technicalities of the accident that I've missed out, please feel free to add them in (provided that you can source them properly, of course ;] ) – Pee Jay 00:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much missed out as 'not quite right'! I can edit the article myself if it is easier. I have sat through many article reviews and I've thought 'well you could have fixed that yourself! While I'm still conscious I will add some thoughts below:

For GA class and above the lead needs to be longer (recommended four paragraphs). That should not be too difficult, we need a paragraph summarising the accident and causes, another to summarise the investigations and hearings (there is some text/coverage missing in the main article here) and another to summarise the aftermath/tributes/effect on Man Utd.
- I definitely agree with this comment. I guess I spent so much time bulking up the main content of the article that the lead just passed me by. I'll probably add in a {{TOClimit}} template too.
The reference section is non-standard layout for the project, I can fix that.
- Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the References section to me, but that may just be differences in formats between WikiProjects. Therefore, it would probably be best if that wasn't changed for now.
The word 'plane' is used many times, this has been thrashed out in the aviation project, we came to the conclusion that the word 'aircraft' is better although repeating that too often is not good either.
- I was unaware of that particular conclusion, so that can be fixed no problem.
There are some aviation navboxes missing from the bottom of the article, when they are added the bright red half-page width Man Utd. box might get commented on as it will look different.
- Hmm, the club navbox will be a tough one to change; not technically, but because all other English football club navboxes are half-page width. Shame really, as they should be 100% width, but changing them all for the sake of one article is pointless. You should go ahead with adding the appropriate aviation navboxes though.
I support you with sticking to the article name, equally nobody in Britain has ever heard of British European Airways Flight 548 but anyone my age and above will remember the Staines air disaster very well.
- Good to know that I have support on this front :)

Will have another look in the morning. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comments. I look forward to seeing more of them :) – Pee Jay 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mjroots

The referencing of the article needs improvement. Particularly the two paragraphs on the causes of the crash.

The sections of fatalities and survivors should IMHO be reorganised. As this is an article about an aircrash, the crew members should be at the top of the list and the passengers should be below them. If there had not been a single football player on the aircraft, the crash would still be sufficiently notable to justify an article. Having the football players listed first gives undue bias to Manchester United FC. Sections should just be titled "Crew" and "Passengers", there is no need to distinguish professions of the passengers as separate sub-sections. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the referencing of the article needs that much improvement. I'd say that, on the whole, the referencing of the article is fairly good, except (as you say) those two paragraphs. However, that can be fixed soon enough. I have reorganised the lists of fatalities and survivors, though, using semi-colon headers to separate the different groups of passengers. – Pee Jay 11:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of death for survivors also need references. The alternative is to delete these as not relevant to the article. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that. I've added as many as I could find. The only ones I couldn't find reliable refs for were Ted Ellyard and Peter Howard. – Pee Jay 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Toon05

In the introduction, would it not make more sense to say "a non-stop trip from Belgrade to Manchester was out of the "Elizabethan" class Airspeed Ambassador aircraft's range", since that was the direction of travel?
- Fixed. Hadn't noticed that at the time. Cheers.
In Background, first paragraph, "The following season, the English league was won by Manchester United, managed by the visionary Matt Busby" - that last part sounds very POV.
- Removed "visionary".
Same section, next paragraph, "...with the young team – known as the "Busby Babes" for their youth..." sounds awkward.
- Changed to "...with the team – known as the "Busby Babes" for their youth...".
Both paragraphs: it isn't clear in which season the European Cup is established. It says "In 1955, UEFA established the European Cup... However, the English league winners, Chelsea, were denied entry... The following season..." do you see, or is it just me?
- Reworded.
In The crash section, final paragraph: "generally not aware of the then unknown danger" ...can you rephrase this? It surely goes without saying that they would be unaware of an unknown danger.
- Yeah, the last two paragraphs of that section need re-doing completely. I still haven't written about the efforts of Harry Gregg in getting some of the last survivors out of the plane.
The final two paragraphs of the same sections are not referenced.
- Same as above.
In Survivors: "At the time of the accident, she was pregnant with her son Zoran, who is also still alive" - should probably reflect his also surviving the crash, as we would probably not know if he is still alive today, will become dated.
- Done.
In Aftermath, the Busby quote should be referenced immediately after. Also, "That simple statement lifted Busby from his depression" - does your source have medical evidence of this? It seems a little exaggerated, impossible to prove.
- The source reads "With those words the black depression lifted and his enthusiasm for the game was suddenly rekindled." Depression isn't always a clinical/medical thing.

That's all for now, I may come back and have another look later, though. Hope this helps, – Toon ^(talk) 19:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has helped a lot. Cheers mate. – Pee Jay 20:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments by Toon05

In Memorials > Old Trafford, second paragraph, the following sentence should be rewritten; use the word "unveiled" less: "Also unveiled that day was a memorial to the members of the press who died at Munich, which consisted of a bronze plaque that named the eight lost journalists and was unveiled by Munich survivor Frank Taylor on behalf of the Football Writers' Association."
- I'm not sure there are many synonyms for "unveil" that would work there. I have reworded it to make it two sentences though, so the (over)use of the word isn't so obvious.
There is a problem with seeral of the same items being linked repeatedly. Per WP:MOSLINKS, they should only be linked once, unless they are introduced far apart. Alex Ferguson, Bobby Charlton and Matt Busby are linked several times reasonably close together.
- It's difficult to find multiple links, but I've removed as many of the links to Ferguson, Charlton and Busby as was appropriate. Not sure if there are any more to be found.
In 40th anniversary, the sentence "From then on, the match ceased to be primarily a tribute to the Busby Babes and became more about Cantona." is an opinion, and should be presented as such. also "relatively paltry sum" is probably best attributed to someone.
- Removed "the relatively paltry sum of", as it should be up to the reader to decide whether £47,000 for the victims compared to £90,000 for Cantona is paltry.
In 50th anniversary, "unveiled the renaming of the tunnel" is awkward - how can you unveil a renaming? You can unveil an inscription of the words, etc.
- Reworded. It now says that they were guests of honour at the ceremony to rename the tunnel.
"sponsors logos" might need to become "sponsors' logos"
- Removed the bit about the manufacturer's logo and simply put "sponsors' logos".
In Tributes > Film, is it important to mention Barry Navidi? He doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article, and it isn't explained who he is.
- I've explained who he is, but unlinked him.
Same section "a former United player who had left United only a few months earlier" is awkward
- Agreed, I've sorted that now.
Same sentence, I would prefer that "...was less restrained, saying that the filmmakers were only interested in making money off the back of the tragedy and that they could not possibly know what went on that day without having been there." became an actual quote (there is one in the source); but this is entirely my opinion.
- I've quoted verbatim (not in the correct order, but that shouldn't matter).
The Tributes section itself is a strange combination of bullet points and prose; you might want to make it consistent, it looks a bit trivia-ish at the moment.
- I've prosified it all except for the list of TV channels that aired programmes about the disaster.

That's all from me, good luck with the article! – Toon ^(talk) 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta buddy. If there's anything I've done in response to your changes that you're not happy with, do please say so :) – Pee Jay 12:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]