Talk:Ramstein airshow disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Aviation WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) 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. Aviation Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Aviation accident task force Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history 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 regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) United States military history task force WikiProject Disaster management This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Ramstein airshow disaster was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: July 31, 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ramstein airshow disaster article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Missing Man Formation? 2 Rammstein relevance 3 GA review comments 4 deletions 5 External links 6 Original Research, esp in "Analysis" section? 7 67 dead, or 31 dead?

[edit] Missing Man Formation?

Under the "Accident Process" section, the text says "After the crash the remaining group had to circle the airbase in missing man formation." There's even a link to "Missing Man formation," but I think it highly unlikely that a ceremonial formation would be used under emergency circumstances like that. Can anyone document this? Septegram 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's been over a month, and no response. I'm going to delete the reference.

Septegram 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rammstein relevance

Regarding this edit: I can agree with the Trivia heading not being appropriate, but the fact that the band Rammstein was named after the event and that one of their first and major songs is a tribute to the event is relevant and definitely relating to the event. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm going to replace it, under the heading "References in popular culture". Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's one more comment, which I trust will serve as final proof of the relevance of this section: at the article 1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire, which was recently promoted to FA status, there is a similar section - not one of the FA reviewers thought this was a problem (although one did wonder if it's format should maybe be converted). Convinced now? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review comments

Well, here you go:

• All fair use images are missing fair use rationale for inclusion in this article - this should be remedied immediately.
• Why is "(Ramstein, county of Kaiserslautern, Germany)." added at the end of the lead in parentheses? It's out of context.
• "Aermacchi MB-339PAN" - is PAN part of the aircraft designation? It's used here and nowhere else.
• Ref [1] need only be used once in the Crash section, right at the end.
• "...and went to ..." - landed at?
• Emergency response section lacks citation, and should be written in prose rather than listified.
• "(80 km)" - firstly use a non-breaking space between the 80 and the km, secondly, is this mentioned because of the sizeable distance? If so, bring that to the attention of the reader.
• Do something about the [citation needed] tag.
• "Better coordination and organization of the rescue efforts would probably have prevented some of the deaths. " - this sounds like original research to me.
• Citation needed for "The German authorities vowed to avoid such failures in the future and conduct regular large-scale drills using simulated disasters that involve all emergency services."
• Expand PTSD.
• Aftermath and references section need citations.
• Why translate 400 meters into feet and not translate any of the other units in the article? Also, make sure to use non-breaking spaces as mentioned above.
• Again, use prose instead of listing out the new safety regulations, I think it's relatively easy to make that section read a lot better.
• External links need serious trimming per WP:EL - probably only need two, and definitely not the blogs.

So, primarily because of the issues with fair use images, problems with prose and lack of citations, I'm going to fail the GA at this time. If the above issues are dealt with, please feel free to re-nominate the article for GA. If you'd like any help with implementing the above then let me know. The Rambling Man 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletions

John, removing the documentary of relatives of victims is not an option. Read them first or keep away. Guidod 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please read the external links policy before adding more external links.

The following kinds of links are inappropriate:

• Online discussion groups or chat forums
• Personal webpages and blogs
• Multiple links to the same website
• Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)

Links which do not comply with the policy must not be included in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research, esp in "Analysis" section?

On April 10, 2008, editor Cynjut (Talk | contribs) made a number of changes, which added a new section, "Analysis". None of that section cites reliable sources. It speaks about research in the passive voice. The section ends by saying, "...If the accident had occurred 50 feet east of where it did, it would have ... probably killed me." If "me" refers to the editor, then I understand why they would have expertise and passion about this topic. It makes me wonder if the entire Analysis section is original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. I think this section needs at least a change to remove the "me" reference, and some citation of reliable sources which do the analysis. I'm leaving the editor a message on their Talk page. --Jdlh | Talk 19:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 67 dead, or 31 dead?

"Sixty-seven spectators and three pilots died and 346 spectators sustained serious injuries in the resulting explosion and fire."

"Of the 31 people who died at the scene, 28 had been hit by shrapnel in the form of airplane parts, concertina wire, and debris from items on the ground.[2] Sixteen of the fatalities occurred in the days and weeks after" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.23.122 (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)