Talk:Turkish Airlines Flight 301

Turkish Airlines Flight 301 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 27, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Turkish Airlines Flight 301 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 September 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the first order of Turkish prime minister Bülent Ecevit made in office was to send the minister of transport to the crash site of Turkish Airlines Flight 301 (aircraft pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Turkish Airlines Flight 301.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 26, 2024.

Aviation: Accidents

	Aviation portal 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 articles
	This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

The aircraft that crashed as Flight 301

... that the first ever order of Turkish Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit in office was to send the Minister of Transport to the crash site of Turkish Airlines Flight 301 (accident aircraft pictured)?

Source: Gök 2018, p. 75: "Görevine başladığı gün [...] başbakanlık görevindeki ilk emrini Ulaştırma Bakanı'na vermiştir ve bu emir 'Keza mahalline gidiniz!' olmuştur."
Translation: "On the day he started his duty [...] he gave his first order as prime minister to the Minister of Transport, and this order was 'Go to the scene!'"

- Reviewed: Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center
- Comment: Prior to expansion it was 1320 characters, now 6834, which gives an expansion of 5.17x.

5x expanded by Styyx (talk). Self-nominated at 01:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

5x expansion is confirmed. AGF on offline and Turkish language sources. Hook fact is interesting enough and cited inline in the article. It appears to be written neutrally. QPQ is present. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Turkish Airlines Flight 301/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 06:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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): 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):
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:

Criteria 1[edit]

Overall the prose reads mostly clear but needs additional tweaking so it flows better and consistently. Some sentences are unnecessarily long due to the wording choice. I'll list the issues below, you need not follow exactly if you have a better solution or can justify:

Lead[edit]

Simplify with occupants: "66 of the 73 people on board" → "66 of its 73 occupants"

Done.

Cut words: "State archives about the crash confirmed that the conducted autopsy found alcohol in the blood of the captain and flight engineer, but that it was not the cause of the accident." → "Autopsy results confirmed alcohol was found in the blood of the captain and flight engineer, but that it was not the cause of the accident."

Done.

Aircraft and crew[edit]

Add comma after 1973: "Turkish Airlines on 9 January 1973 and had flown" → "Turkish Airlines on 9 January 1973, and had flown"

Added.

Add thousand separator where needed, for example: "2269 hours" → "2,269 hours"

That's done by you. I'm keeping the serial number as "11057" because they tend to be kept that way.

Simplify: "same crew and aircraft had made the Izmir–Athens–Izmir flight without any reported issues" → "same crew and aircraft made the Izmir–Athens–Izmir flight without reporting issues"

Done.

With the ground? "The left wing made contact first, followed by the left fuselage belly."

Yep, the ground. Added.

"belly hit a 50-centimetre (20 in) bank of the drainage ditch" → "belly struck a 50-centimetre (20 in) bank of a drainage ditch"

Done.

Specify that those were "empty" drums so readers understand those are used to contain fluids.

Added.

Wreckage and recovery[edit]

"quickly at the scene of the accident" → "quickly at the accident scene"

Done.

Victims[edit]

"Initial reports mentioned that 62 people had died and 11 were critically injured, and that 51 of those had died at the accident scene, while 11 others, including all three pilots, died in hospital after being taken out of the wreckage in a critical condition." → "Initial reports mentioned that 62 people perished; 51 died on-site, while 11 others, including all three pilots, died in hospital."

Done.

I'm off for an event today so will add additional comments later in the day. Thank you. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was sleeping anyway so. :D

Transport ministers[edit]

The article list three different transport ministers. I assume the date of the accident to 1990 spans three transport minister terms. Please add a footnote or indicate in the paragraphs to indicate that. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it actually spans, 10. Özbek did come right after Güley, but Tuncer came 12 years after Özbek left office. See this list.

Use of "aircraft" and "plane"[edit]

The article uses the word "plane" and "aircraft" interchangeably; is it better to stick to one term consistently? It's fine to use both when quoting sources or people. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually know. I didn't want to be repetitive by using a single term, Dora the Axe-plorer. ~Styyx^Talk? 10:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think it's a pressing issue to use both terms as some GA articles do, while others stick strictly to "aircraft". It is just my style and something I like but you need not follow that. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blockquote[edit]

The short blockquote in Final report looks a bit awkward. It might be better to incorporate that into the first paragraph. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a busy day today. Dora the Axe-plorer, do you mean like this or this? ~Styyx^Talk? 20:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I pushed that last bid to the beginning of the second paragraph so it reads better. Concerning the final sentence (Had there been no frost accretion, the plane would have taken off safely), does that mean even if the pilots over-rotated the aircraft in non-icing conditions, it would still take off safely? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The report says "[Some findings related to over-rotation]. This indicates that the aircraft was rotated more than the normal angle of attack. It is believed that the frost accretion on the wings caused the aircraft to stall soon after take-off, whereas it would have flown safely in normal conditions", so yes. Added. ~Styyx^Talk? 10:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]