# Talk:Ural Airlines Flight 178

As Crimeas status is disputed, I changed the destination to be in Crimea (neither Ukraine nor Russia). Then that dispute can hopefully be left out of the article. -- 188.151.51.78 (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I've removed two accidents caused by ice ingestion. IMvHO, the three accidents now left are sufficient. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, starting a discussion here. Why should that information be included? Keep in mind that the subject of this article is an airplane crash, not some controversial Ukrainian website... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have no idea what's going on between Ukraine and Russia and Crimea and all, if you think it is irrelevant. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
No, I am aware of the disputes between Russia and Ukraine, but they have nothing to do with this article... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes it has immediately to do with the article: all world praises the pilots, while Ukraine lists them on the witch-hunt website. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
That's not our problem, (your argument appears to be WP:SYNTH at best) and thus we are in no need to report it (WP:NOTNEWS), especially when it shines by it's lack of significant mention in more sources (the website of the Ukrainian organization is WP:PRIMARY and doesn't warrant it's POV being reported, and the Russian source only has a short story on the matter - so we should avoid mentioning it so as not to give it WP:UNDUE weight). In any case, when it is not crucial to the subject (and, in this case, it clearly has no significant impact), it is better to avoid any statements which are controversial, even more so when their origin is WP:FRINGE. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Edit: see also the above section about "Destination" - I think that is a right way to proceed, and we should keep the Crimea dispute ("broadly construed") out of this article (especially since the link is rather tenuous... merely because the flight was headed to Crimea does not suddenly make this a part of the conflict). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY was used here to confirm the fact reported in in secondary source. Yes is is a short, but glaring story, widely circulated in Rusian media. Yes, it is crucial for subject: the crew is under the threat in a whole country. FYI some journalists were killed after landing in Mirotvorets, while other people were severely harassed by ukronazis. And there is no controversy: a plain fact readers can judge for themselves. Yes, merely because the flight was headed to Crimea makes it a violation of Ukrainian law; moreover, I remember a Russian ship or two were seized because among its destinations were Crimean ports, or something. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Hell, this was reported even by BBC! (ref added). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The crew being "under threat in a whole country" is relevant to the crew, but not to the flight. The BBC gives it a short paragraph. The talk about "ukronazis" doesn't go in the article in any case, so while your opinion has been politely noted, it is not necessary. I have changed what is in the article to match better with the BBC article (since that is an truly independent source which can be trusted for stuff like this)... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
is relevant to the crew, but not to the flight  -- bullshit.  Let's delete the section "Crew", then.   BBC? Independent? It was long time ago when  BBC was a true example if true journalism. Now it is full of fake news and political bias. No further disagreement, anyway. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands is acceptable. We report good, and bad, on both sides, without bias for or against, but neutrally. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

UralAirlines Crash.jpg
UralAirlines Scrapped (2).jpg
UralAirlines Scrapped.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ural Airlines Flight 178/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: RandomInfinity17 (talk · contribs) 02:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 04:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am RecycledPixels.  I will review this article over the next few days.   I usually take the review in several steps, and not normally in order.  Please don't respond or edit this GA review page until I've completed item #7, the "overall assessment" field at the end, which is my sign that I have completed my steps, the ball is in your court, and I will wait for you to respond.  That way we won't be disrupting each other with edit conflicts during this process.  I will also ping you to let you know I have finished my part. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Additional suggestions that not part of the GA criteria.  Whether or not these are implemented will not affect whether this article passes or fails the GA nomination.

Some issues with false precision with the {{convert}} templates, such as "after the ingestion of a medium-sized bird 1.5 lb (0.68 kg)", "One of the birds ingested into the left engine was considered large, with a weight of above 2.5 lb (1.1 kg)", and "4,950 m (16,240 ft) from the end of Runway 12".  See Help:Convert#Rounding
Be consistent with conversions.  Metric->imperial (most likely) or imperial->metric throughout the article.
Archive links to web citations are great to have to prevent link rot.  It's pretty simple to do, just go to https://web.archive.org/ , enter the URL in the "Save Page Now" field, and the Wayback Machine will do most of the rest of the work.  Then add the citation template fields archive-url=, archive-date=, and url-status=live to the citation templates.  That helps protect the article when some bored kid comes long five years from now and maliciously changes facts that we can't verify from the original source.
In the first paragraph of the "Accident" section, clarify that when Yusupov said they would only address ECAM issues after 400 ft., that it refers to 400 ft. above ground level, not 400 ft. altitude.
All (specific) comments in 1a have been addressed except for The failure for Murzin to properly call out "Positive climb". I don't see the grammar error here, may you please be more specific? RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The complete sentence is The failure for Murzin to properly call out "Positive climb" resulted in Yusupov's failure to raise the gear, and in later interviews to the MAK, he said he never heard Murzin call out "Climb".  "The failure FOR x TO y" is grammatically incorrect.  You would write, "Murzin's failure to properly call out POSITIVE CLIMB resulted in ... " (grammatically correct, simpler and clearer) or you could write "The improper call out of POSITIVE CLIMB resulted in... " (less desirable because it hides who made the improper call) or "The failure of (something) resulted in..." or other variations that use Murzin as the subject of the sentence rather than Murzin's failure to follow correct procedures.   There are also some "he" pronouns later in that sentence that could use clarification, since you've mentioned two people, but I think that second item is more of a stylistic preference than a grammatical error that runs up against Criteria 1a. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Advise taken. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Second concern in 1b addressed, but I do think it is valuable for the reader to know how the results of the report were made public. The fact that the previous sentence says "the last update to the investigation on the MAK website was an interim statement made one year after the accident" makes the reader wonder why the next paragraph is about the results of the supposedly never-released investigation. Bringing up the fact that it was posted on Telegram resolves this question. But feel free to explain your argument more. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The article in its current form is 4,864 words.  The lead section is 405 words, and the three sentences in the lead about the report is 71 of those 405 words (18%).  The four sentences about this in the body of the article total 124 words (3% of the body's 4,459 words).  Even if this isn't a neutrality issue, you're running up against MOS:LEADREL, "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.  This is true for both the lead section and the body of the article.  If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy."
In addition to that, there's still the issue of neutrality of that I brought up under criteria 4.  The whole section appears to be based on the September 7, 2022 Meduza article.  That article quotes an anonymous source from within Rosaviatsiya that says that MAK's process is to first release the report to the airline and the regulator, allow the airlines to make changes to their policies and allow the regulator to make new policies, and only then publish the report for the public.  That source also adds that they are sure that the report will be published on the website, and that it's just a matter of time.  The leaked document is dated August 16, 2022, so less than a month before the Meduza article was published.  Much of the vocal criticism appears to be based on statements by aviation journalist Andrei Menshenin.  Who is he?  Maybe he's a really prominent subject matter expert, and maybe he's just a blogger with an axe to grind, I don't know.  On the other hand, today, the mak-iac.org website still lists the accident as "investigation ongoing", so about what I'd expect and not a good look for them.  In order to resolve my neutrality concern, I'd like to see more (recent if possible) reporting by reliable sources that the failure to officially release the report is worthy of note, and not just "how it's always been done" because the report could embarrass certain prominent political figures who had gushingly praised the pilots in the aftermath.  RecycledPixels (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
For the comment about the lead, I just removed the entire paragraph about the report not being published; too much weight given to it. As for the concerns about neutrality, I'll probably get to this after finishing my first round of comments on the Western 636 GA. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
All comments in 2a addressed RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
All comments in 2b addressed RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
3b addressed, but feel free to point out any other details you think need addressing (aside from paragraph 3 of accident, I will get to that soon). RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
First point of 4 addressed; paragraph removed. As for the second you point you brought up, I don't know how the phrase it better. I added an extra sentence on why it might have been never officially published, but I don't know if it is enough. For the third point, I started to add what you were looking for, but I will probably add more. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I discussed this further in the 1b section above. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
All comments in 6b addressed. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Additional suggestion 1, 2, and 4 implemented. For 2, I used imperial because it is the unit the MAK used in their investigation and what is used in aviation generally. I might add archive links to everything at some later on, but probably not now. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that Russian aviation had switched to imperial units from metric.   I came across comments about that when I was looking up the issue about the release of the accident report.  What could go wrong?  RecycledPixels (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I think I would like this review to be placed on hold to give me time to address understandability and neutrality. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 01:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I've put it on hold.   I try to stay as hands-off as possible through this part of the process as possible, so when you're ready for me to take another look at it, please ping me.  RecycledPixels (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@RecycledPixels: I've attempted my best to respond to comments on understandability and neutrality, but it still needs a look over. I am particularly struggling to find a way to make the "final report" section more neutral. On one hand, the final report being leaked on Telegram is a fact and is a key part of this accident that should be in the article. On the other hand, very few sources seem to make note of this. Besides the Meduza article, the "best" source I've been able to find is this article, but I'm not convinced on its reliability. For one, it gets the translator's name wrong (it's Kyra, not Kara). But more importantly, it is based off the translator's Medium article, which a) as well researched as it is, it is still an unreliable source and b) the author has requested that her work should not be used for Wikipedia articles. Besides that, if you have any more concerns on grammar, understandability, and neutrality, let me know what specially to fix. Also, what is your opinion of TASS being used as a source in background (Ref2) and reactions (Ref43). When I was working on this article, I saw that TASS was marked as an generally unreliable source, but I still used it as it is citing some statements that are mostly uncontroversial and supported by other sources, but what are your thoughts? RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 04:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I rolled my eyes a bit when I saw that, but when I looked deeper into WP:TASS, I was left with the impression that the WP consensus is that TASS should only be used as a source for things that the Russian government said or said it did.   Looking at the 2022 RFC on which that is based, you can see that most of that discussion centers around TASS's role in spreading misinformation and propaganda related to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and several make mention of how the news agency "used to be just biased, now it's pure lies" or variants like that, and some commenters made mention that various news agencies have cut ties with TASS because of recent false information, again, related to Ukraine.   Left unsaid in that whole discussion is what should be done about older TASS articles that predate 2022.   Looking at the previous RFC, in 2019, it was a discussion that attracted less participation, and was also heavily weighted around TASS's coverage of events in Ukraine, Crimea, and Donbass.  So, the RFC concluded that the reliability of TASS varies on the content, and anything that the Russian Government has an interest in shaping the narrative is less likely to be reliable.    Keeping in mind that WP:TASS is just a pointer to a handy list that summarizes past discussions on the reliable source noticeboard, I think that you could make the argument that a 2019 TASS article about the names of the pilots and where they went to school is pretty uncontroversial enough.  And from what I feel I know about the person who put that tag there, I think they'd accept such an argument if it was placed in that context.   But that won't stop the next person a year from now from rubber-stamping the article with the tag again, or just deleting the statements that are referenced to TASS, citing WP:TASS.   So, you could start a new RFC on the reliability of TASS and argue that older TASS articles that are uncontroversial in nature should be allowed as sources (sounds like a real pain in the tail), or you could just find replacements for TASS in this article.  Personally, I don't enjoy wasting my time arguing with people with strongly-held beliefs about what should and should not be deleted unless it's really necessary, so I'd go with the replacement option, or, failing that, delete the content that can't be supported with anything that is only sourced to TASS.  Note that the fact that Putin awarded the title of the Heroes of Russia to the pilots is sourced to TASS, and meets the current restriction of WP:TASS because it's something the Russian Government did or said it did (even though it probably wishes it hadn't, which is another good reason to have an archive link).  RecycledPixels (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
As far as the neutrality of the final report goes, the key thing I see in your statement is On one hand, the final report being leaked on Telegram is a fact and is a key part of this accident that should be in the article, but you note that very few sources seem to make note of this.  (Avisure is an Australian aviation risk consultancy firm, by the way, not a reliable source)  I think you can probably find reliable sources that state that the final report was leaked on Telegram.  Here's another problem with passive voice in the article.  The text Rather than being officially published by the MAK, the final report was posted by several Telegram channels in August 2022.  The article does not identify who posted the final report on Telegram.  In my brief searches, I got the impression that the final report was leaked to telegram, not officially "posted" by MAK.  So, is this a question of MAK publishing the final report in the wrong venue, or is it an issue of the MAK not publishing the final report at all?  Is the lack of a publicly-available final report that is politically inconvenient especially noteworthy in Russia?  Personally, I'm not holding my breath for a report of the 2023 Wagner Group plane crash "in-flight breakup" to be released. It would be neutral to state (with reliable sources) that the final report was never published, and that the MAK does not always publicly release its final reports (again with sources), but that a leaked copy of what is claimed to be the final report was made available by anonymous sources on Telegram.    As a personal note, I encountered a similar issue when I was working on the Aeroméxico Connect Flight 2431 article, which was my first aviation accident article.   The Aviation Herald writeup on this accident [1] made a big deal with bold text about the fact that the final report was only released in Spanish, and that they were really supposed to release it in English as well.  When I tried to find other reliable sources of agencies and organizations complaining about this, I came up empty, so I left the Spanish-only statements out of the final article.  RecycledPixels (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Wait.  b) the author has requested that her work should not be used for Wikipedia articles.  When/where was this?  I wasn't aware of that.  I used her as a source for some items in an article before, and was reverted because of WP:MEDIUM, but didn't feel like fighting that battle then even though I felt she qualified as a subject matter expert. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I've replaced the TASS source in the background with other sources that verify the same information (Orenburzhie and the MAK both contain the same information). I've  also slightly reworded the final report section with your suggestions; will do a more extensive source check and re-word tomorrow. She said that her work (and Medium in general) should not be used as a Wikipedia source in a discord server, not anywhere officially online, I should've clarified that. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@RandomInfinity17: Checking in.  Are you ready for me to take another look at the article, or are you still working on this?  RecycledPixels (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I think so. I have removed some passive voice from the article and slightly expanded on the final report (although I was only able to find one additional source, so if you still think there are problems with neutrality or sourcing, I will probably just remove the paragraph for the time being). Another user also refined the article a lot (thanks!), so you might want to look over that. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)


### Second review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Article is clear and concise, broadly defined.   The article has received a considerable amount of copyediting since the first review, and the spelling and grammar issues outlined in that review have been removed.  I still see some technical language that a general audience may struggle to understand, but it is generally understandable.  I made a couple of trivial edits to the article while performing this review to address simple copy edits.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
MOS:LEADREL concerns identified in the first review have been addressed.  Still no issues with MOS:LAYOUT.   MOS:WEASEL concern with the comparisons to the US Airways Flight 1549 are addressed in the body by stating that the comparisons were made on social media, which sufficiently addresses the context.  The lead section statement about the comparison still has a vague "comparisons were made..." statement, but since it is expanded upon in the body this is no longer a concern, merely a suggestion.  MOS:WAF and MOS:EMBED still do not apply.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Authors, archive links and access dates have been added to citations where needed.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
I performed a spot check of references in the first review.  That turned up two minor issues, which have been addressed.  The overall sense from that spot-check was that references are being accurately reflected in the article, so I do not feel that there is a need to perform additional spot checking.
C. It contains no original research: 
No original research issues identified in either review.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
No concerns identified in the first review; I did not perform additional spot checking of sources in this review that could have identified undiscovered issues.  My overall sense from the first review was that the article has been written with an awareness of copyright and plagiarism concerns, and that such issues are not present in this article.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Article is still comprehensive, covering all of the major topics I would expect to find in an aviation accident article.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
The amount of unrelated and trivial information has been sufficiently reduced in the article.  There is still a some, but not enough to significantly distract from the reader's understanding of the main points.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
We have discussed the yhe criticism of the MAK's release of the report on telegram in the original review as well as our discussions in the sections following.  The text of the article has been adjusted to the point where the "finger-wagging" tone has been eliminated, and the article is more factual in nature with less unsupported criticism of the MAK.   I made a sufficiently minor adjustment to the text, clarifying that anonymous sources released the report on several Telegram channels, rather than the actual Telegram channels releasing the report as well as resolving an "as of" concern.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No edit warring on the article.  An uninvolved editor placed an appropriate "unreliable source" tag on the article during the course of this GA review, and the nominator replaced that source with better sources.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
No copyright concerns on images.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Autopilot disconnection image with unclear relevance has been removed.   Captions have been improved.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Article has improved substantially, passing.

@RandomInfinity17: Article has improved substantially, no remaining issues, well done.  RecycledPixels (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)