Talk:2010 Air Service Berlin Douglas C-47 crash

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 February 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by YSSYguy (talk · contribs) on 21 June 2010 with the comment:
Notability not established
It was contested by 86.31.208.131 (talk · contribs) on 2010-06-21 with the comment:
Meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria A3 (and possibly A5) and P1

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 articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Deprod was by User:Mjroots who didn't realise he'd been logged out

Gail Halvorsen edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The use of Gail Halvorsen's statement of his intention to donate $100 is in accordance with WP:SPS and does not fail as a blog source. The inclusion of the actual amount was proposed by myself at WT:AV, where another editor expressed the opinion that the source was useable. I have given it a separate reference to the main Aviation Herald article due to its position within that article. Mjroots (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sequence: it was reported when? edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. At the moment the article says "Shortly after take-off from Berlin Schönefeld Airport on a local sightseeing flight,^[3] it was reported that the port engine failed and the aircraft was unable to gain height. "

I've got a slight problem with this but I don't want to try to fix it as I don't know the sources or the author's intent. I find it's currently ambiguous. It could mean:

A report was made shortly after take-off concerning the engine failure (presumably by the aircraft) or
A report was made that the engine failed shortly after take-off etc. This report was made at an unspecified time, presumably later.

Do you see what I am getting at here? I know it sounds a bit trivial (but hey, look around you); nevertheless I feel there's a bit of a difference in possible meanings here and it would be great to clarify which one is correct. For what (very little) it's worth, my guess/feeling is that at the moment it reads like (1) but the truth is (2) - we are referring to a later report. But you may know better - either way, it would be great to nail it down one way or t'other and say goodbye to Mr Ambiguity. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic