# Talk:United Airlines Flight 328

A flight path map would be a good idea.
A debris field map would be a good idea.
-- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could go out with a local map and jot down all the engine bits?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps someone familiar with the local geography, could collate the news reports of debris bits and plot it on a map, or add a general cloud covering the area of the reported debris. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for my sardonic tone. Yes, maybe they could. That would be very industrious. But, unless it then got published by a wholly reliable source, it would be very hastily fling out as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
If it the various locations were published by news outlets, then the RSes would exist. Collating the locations and plotting them isn't OR or an RS violation (unless this article is an OR violation, since this article is collating information provided by RS news outlets). The image would just need the references attached onto the file page to satisfy WP:V for the map itself. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
That's true, if every bit was supported by an RS. But I think it might be difficult to provide an exact verified precise location for every piece from RS. News reports tend to say things like "outside a house on 47th Street", or whatever? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It could be just a polygon of the general debris area plus flight tracker data overlays on OpenStreetMap (every bit and piece/part would be a bit excessive ✈️IMHO --:GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴⍨talk 12:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Some photos of the debris, the damaged aircraft, would be a good idea.
-- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, from behind the safety of the "POLICE CRIME SCENE  - DO NOT CROSS" tapes, I guess so. There's Freedom of panorama in the US? (as long as there's no architecture or works of art??) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC) p.s. but probably not worth it if the article is going to get deleted anyway (see below)... (AfD was a speedy keep). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a photo of the cowling ring in this report from the BBC which is labelled "Broomfield PD". Does that make it a Public Domain image? Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Haha. I assumed it meant that the copyright was held by these guys. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Me too, but isn't there a thing in the USA that photographs taken by government employees in the course of their work are in the public domain? Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
{{PD-USGov}} 17 U.S. Code § 105 Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government; some state and local governments have similar rules. Though a cursory glance doesn't seem to make COLO one of those states. --- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks 65..., looks like we'll have to wait on the NTSB then. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I’m the author of the photos showing the aircraft in-air. As I am unaffiliated with any agencies and have released the photos for free as long as copyright is given, I approve the usage of them on the page if needed. Speedbird5280 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Very generous. They'll need to be uploaded to Wiki or Commons. Can you provide an internet source? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as “United 328 Incident - Exterior 01/02” Speedbird5280 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

So these: File:United 328 Incident - Exterior 01.jpg and File:United 328 Incident - Exterior 02.jpg? Very good. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Those are correct. Many thanks to you too Speedbird5280 (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I can't see the photos anymore.--Paolo9999 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
They've been deleted at Commons as copyright violations. Will head over there and ask questions. Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I've raised the issue with the admin at Commons who deleted the images. I expect a reply in about 8-12 hours. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Copied from c:user talk:Elcobbola - The restoration procedure is discussion with the deleting admin and/or the undeletion process if the deleting admin is not amenable or a wider audience is needed. In this case, the uploader already pursued the undeletion process and the request was declined for the reason on which I'll elaborate: Copyright violation means a violation of our polices related to copyright and is not necessarily to be conflated with copyright infringement. As I'm sure you're aware, we require no evidence or verification to register a given username (here, Speedbird5280) or to make a given assertion. Accordingly, we not uncommonly have users register impostor accounts, fan accounts, and the like, especially around current events. Of course, I do not say this is the case with Speedbird5280, but I trust you understand that, as a matter of diligence, fairness, and respect for the property and rights of authors, this historical abuse has caused us to require previously published images to have additional evidence of permission submitted using the COM:OTRS process (this is not dissimilar to the en.wiki concept of verifiably, not truth, being an inclusion threshold). As an alternative, Speedbird5280 could edit the speedbird5280 Instagram account profile to include "I am speedbird5280 on Wikipedia" (or similar), which would be sufficient demonstration of the connection. This change would not need to be permanent; it need only be there long enough for me to see it, which would allow me to restore the images and mark them as reviewed. Elcobbola talk 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Speedbird5280: - can you please alter your instagram account as requested, then either ping me here that you've done so, or post on Elcobbola's talk page at Commons that you have done so. Once Elcobbola is satisfied that you are the copyright holder the photos will be restored to Commons and can be used in the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Some diagrams of the damaged engine and what was shed from the engine would be a good idea.
-- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This would seem to overlap significantly with the remit of official investigation. I'm not sure if there is any legal constraint. But in any case, there might be considerable practical difficulties? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No fatalities, no hull loss, no injuries... Just a flurry of reporting on the day of the incident. IMO, nothing more than just news, fails WP:NOTNEWS. More than sufficient to list the incident at the Denver International Airport.  -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. Should we make an article on every uncontained engine failure? I don't think so. Totally useless.--Paolo9999 (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
P199, Paolo9999, I agree; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 328.  Sandstein  21:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we'll get List of uncontained failures of Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Still, would it be notable?--Paolo9999 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
If we got a dozen more it might. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
If there's not enough for a list article, the engine article itself Pratt & Whitney PW4000 should contain such a list, like how airline articles and aircraft articles have lists of accidents and incidents. This is the loss of an engine in operation, so it would seem to impact the engine itself. The NTSB has already noted inspection failures and maintenance failures for this particular engine, from prior incidents. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
No objection. Sounds very sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
If so, United 328 would NOT be included, as this was NOT an uncontained failure -- see  and . Neither was the same-day Longtail Aviation incident incorrectly (so far as we can tell from the photos available so far) described as one here under the "Pratt & Whitney PW4000" heading.JMichael3 (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Japan has grounded all 777s due to this incident though. Thus there is fallout beyond the airline/airframer/enginemaker/ground. So, it seems like an evolving situation. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
That's true, there might be more. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The FAA is ordering increased inspections and wants to get other countries to do the same. Definitely a policy change and therefore notable.Alpacaaviator (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
United Airlines has just pulled all 777s with this engine from its fleet "out of an abundance of caution" ahead of any FAA airworthiness directive. Furthermore they have 28 such airliners in storage, so there's plenty of material to work with.  An evolving situation indeed...! kencf0618 (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems likely there will be a similar grounding of 747s shortly, as a result of both this incident and the apparently similar Longtail Aviation incident the same day. The common factor here is the engine, not the aircraft type. If grounding is appropriate, it ought to -- and likely will before long -- affect all aircraft with P&W 4000 series engines. And from reading the final report on the earlier United 1175 incident, these groundings seem likely to last for many months since fan blades needing full re-inspection have to be removed from the engine and shipped to P&W for that inspection, and P&W is capable of inspecting blades from only about 1 engine per day.JMichael3 (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 328 is now speedy keep and a SNOW keep. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:Notability has nothing to do with editors' personal feelings on the subject--editors should focus on giving their professional opinion on the availability of WP:RS. Aside from the extensive press coverage and commentary, the NTSB has opened an on-site investigation that will likely result in hundreds of pages of primary source data and secondary source analysis. NTSB is an exemplar of a reliable source that would be sufficient as a sole source to determine this is notable. But we also have the FAA issuing an emergency AD, which means we now have multiple reliable sources. So this incident is a slam-dunk on notability. Where to put this info is an editorial decision, but I would argue there is already sufficient info to justify a stand-alone page.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.242.146 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

A trophy of an honor.  Thank you.  kencf0618 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this article is missing an important piece of information: how long the plane was in the air. Can someone please add this? I can't tell the correct number from FlightAware. Thanks. --Albany NY (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Take-off time was 12:15, which I have now added, with a NYT source, to the article. It landed at 13.37. So flight time was 22 minutes 1 hour and 22 minutes. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Correcting? But do we have a source for landing time? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
According to Flightradar24, UA328 took off at 20:04 UTC (13:04 MST) and landed at 20:28 UTC (13:28 MST). See altitude chart. NYT's unspecified pieces of the plane fell across three neighborhoods around 1:08 p.m. local time may be correct, but take off time 12:15 p.m. local time is unlikely.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I see. Many thanks. The article text will need some adjustment. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This article says 13:04 and 13:28.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Then I think we should use that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Have now amended and replaced sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m not trying to argue meaningless semantics or split hairs... who am I kidding, that’s exactly what this is.  Apologies.
I’ve only seen parties in the NTSB refer to this as not being an uncontained engine failure, and this article currently lists it as an uncontained failure.  Any chance of getting the article corrected?  This comes up in the NTSB video conference from earlier this week, at about 23:40 - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfGJsfS13g&t=1420 75.163.217.245 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Although media reports widely speculated that this was an uncontained engine failure, the photos show the engine case containment appears intact. NTSB Sumwalt confirmed that their initial assessment was that the engine case containment held, so in the "strictest definition" this is properly categorized as "not an uncontained engine failure". Since NTSB is a more authoritative source, the article shows this as a contained engine failure.
Notwithstanding that, a blade fragment was found on the ground, so it either exited via the inlet or the outlet; but the fact that the blade fragment was not contained, does not make this an uncontained engine failure, because it would be unreasonable to expect the engine to contain blade fragments that exit through pre-existing openings. In an uncontained engine failure, the blade fragment would need to open up a new hole in the engine casing and escape through it.
What I suspect may have happened here is similar to the Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 accident where a fan blade fragment spiraled forward out the engine inlet and damaged the inlet duct causing it to separate from aerodynamic loads. But those are airframe parts, not engine parts, so it's a different problem. The airframe is supposed to be designed to handle the residual kinetic energy from fan blade fragments that are initially contained within the engine casing and subsequently depart via the inlet. But now that we have a fleet of higher bypass engines with great big fan blades that are reaching advanced age and failing more often, we are finding out that the cowling designs are not holding up as they should.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.242.146 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
We have to go with whatever NTSB decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The requirement is that any high-energy fragments, e.g., fan, turbine, etc are contained within the circumference of the engine casing, nacelle, etc, thus not endangering other parts of the aircraft. Fragments that are contained and then subsequently fall out of the engine at low velocity don't really matter too much, except possibly to anyone on the ground they may fall upon.
The requirement originated with the early DH Comet where after the first cabin rupture accident in 1954 it was initially not known if the disintegration had been caused by a turbine disc failure, and so existing Comets had the area in the plane of the turbine disc armoured.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.25 (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, both BOAC Flight 781 and South African Airways Flight 201 were lost because of the square windows. But the Comet article suggests that the armour was an original design feature: "Armour had to be placed around the engine cells to contain debris from any serious engine failures". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
You may be right.
Yes, FAA has always required engine failures are contained within the engine case--blades are allowed to exit via the existing inlet and outlet holes, but they cannot make a new hole in the case. For turbojet and turboshaft engines, this is relatively straightforward because relatively small compressor blades are not likely to exit the inlet with significant momentum, and similarly blades that fall out the back are relatively benign (to the aircraft). But as turbofans have moved to higher bypass with bigger fan blades, bigger chunks can spiral out the front past the inlet flange, and the inlet ducts aren't able to tolerate this. So now that these high bypass turbofans are reaching advance age, we are finding out that this is a problem.... Dhaluza (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Bother.  Not to split hairs (again - but we’ve previously established the kind of person I am…) but this seems to be listed on the page as an uncontained failure again.  67.190.144.183 (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair point, thanks. It was changed 22:07, 31 August 2021 by an editor with a username that I find dubious, and a very short history of contributions. Neither of these makes them de facto wrong, of course, but it doesn't increase my faith either. They did not use an edit summary, here or anywhere, so we don't know their thinking on this, nor whether they had seen the discussion right above here. Given all that, I have put it back to the previous version which seems to me (from a position of no specialist knowledge!) to be technically more legit. I am sure that proper consensus-driven collegial editing can reach its own conclusion(s) but under the circs I think that's a better starting point. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This section has now grown so much it's almost begging the question of a separate article. But is it all WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Not OR, there are cites that specifically relate the incidents, as stated in the lead. I do agree that there should be separate articles on the first two, but the first one was deleted (DR ongoing), and the second has references mostly in Japanese. The SPS you allege are still RS as far as they are used. These are not vanity publications or personal web pages. In particular, the official tweet from BroomfieldPD is a RS on its reactions. 24.46.242.146 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is it needed now and at this article? Should we not have Catastrophic failure incidents involving Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines, or similar? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Currently already there is a similar section at Pratt & Whitney PW4000#Involving PW4000-112 series.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Well ok, I think that's where is all belongs. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
We can trim this section now that main article section is defined.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I just took a quick look at the list of failures at PW4000, and its far from complete. I easily found two missing items, and the last one I found said there were four previous of the same type, but with different causes. I think if we take that to its logical conclusion, there's going to be a separate debate about what to include there, in the context of that article, without regard to what links there, like this article. Dhaluza (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I have expanded the lede paragraph of this section with a transplanted note to give a second opinion on the relevance of the related incidents, where NTSB Sumwalt says these other events worldwide are of interest to the investigation, but reserving judgement on whether they are comparable. So that should address concerns that these related events are relevant per RS.
I've added additional PD text from yesterday's NTSB update, so there is more detail on the subject incident, relative to the related incidents. And I also moved this section down in the article to get the pictures to flow better, so the fan blade detail views come later, after the more general views provide context. So a reader that is looking at the pictures will be better able to follow the story. And I think the pictures in this section add to this story by providing direct comparisons. This also helps keep the related incidents from overwhelming this article.
As for whether it belongs here or at PW4000, the answer is yes. This article should only cover the points relevant to this event and investigation. The parallel content at PW4000 should cover the points relevant to the wider application of the engine. So for example it includes the Korean event, which is a turbine blade failure, not a fan blade out failure. The Longtail also appears to be a turbine blade failure based on the pics, and so is probably just a concurrent event only coincidentally relevant. There will be future events which may or not be related to this event. So although they may look redundant now, they will grow apart.
Dhaluza (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that this accident occurred only two weeks ago, it seems surprising to see it already nominated as a good article. Indeed, the article includes updates from as recently as yesterday, and is liable to change, and require significant updates, depending on future events—such as the results of the FAA investigation, and inspections of blades on similar aircraft. Dhaluza, I would recommend withdrawing the nomination for now, continuing to work on and update it, and then renominating it when it is more stable. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There was an NTSB update yesterday, so yes it did change to incorporate that, which was unusually and unexpectedly detailed. But typically there won't be anything more for another year or so. Dhaluza (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:United Airlines Flight 328/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 15:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I will be reviewing this article to see if it passes the WP:Good article criteria. I aim to get the review done within a few days, and then place it on hold for seven days. I have two good articles myself, those being 2020 West Coast Eagles season and Bayswater, Western Australia. I also have three good article candidates currently (Bedford, Western Australia, Collier Road and 2019 West Coast Eagles season).
– Steelkamp (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I am done with the review. Sorry for taking so long. I will place the review on hold for 14 days. If the issues below are addressed within that time, I will pass the article. Ask me if you have any questions about the issues below.
– Steelkamp (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I am happy to pass it now.
– Steelkamp (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


### Immediate failures
Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows that there is high similarity between this article and other websites. I do not believe this is a copyright violation however, because the parts highlighted to be copyright violations are quotes from the NTSB, which are not subject to copyright. None of the quick fail criteria are met.
– Steelkamp (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct. There is an {{NTSB}} template at the bottom that indicates the article contains public domain content from the NTSB. Dhaluza (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


### Good article criteria
#### Criteria 1
 Well written

I find the first sentence of the lead to be awkward, with how it has the date as the first thing mentioned, rather than the name of the flight. I think United Airlines Flight 328 (UA328) was a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Denver International Airport (DEN) to Honolulu, Hawaii on February 20, 2021. would sound better.
United Airlines Flight 328 (UA328) was a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Denver International Airport to Honolulu, Hawaii. – One of these is an airport, and one is a city. Change to United Airlines Flight 328 (UA328) was a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Denver International Airport to Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Honolulu, Hawaii. Alternatively, change it to United Airlines Flight 328 (UA328) was a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Denver, Colorado to Honolulu, Hawaii.
The Boeing 777-222 aircraft suffered nominally contained engine failure four minutes after takeoff – Should this be The Boeing 777-222 aircraft suffered a nominally contained engine failure four minutes after takeoff?
Parts Departing Aircraft – Should this really have capitals at the start of each word?
Parts Departing Aircraft from the affected engine cowling was recorded by eyewitnesses – Change "was" to "were", as PDA is plural.
The original 777-200 was distinctive for its Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines that are about as wide as a 737 fuselage. – Specify that 737 means Boeing 737, as it is not mentioned earlier on the page.
It was redesigned exclusively for the 777 with a larger 112 inches (280 cm) diameter fan section – Replace this with It was redesigned exclusively for the 777 with a larger 112-inch (280 cm) diameter fan section.
The flight crew indicated they advanced power at that time to minimize time in expected turbulence – Indicated how? Did they say this in an interview after the flight. If so, replace "indicated" with "said". Did investigators determine this from the flight data recorder? If so, then replace "The flight crew indicated they" with "The FDR indicated the flight crew".
They elected not to dump fuel for safety and time reasons and determined that the magnitude of the overweight landing was not significant enough to outweigh other considerations. – This sentence is strange, particularly the word "magnitude".
UA flight 3025 – Is it normal to write it like this? Should it be flight UA3025?
It departed as flight UA328 from Denver International Airport's Runway 25 uneventfully at 13:04 local time. – Add something like , en route to Daniel K. Inouye International Airport (HNL) in Honolulu, Hawaii.
There are some instances of NTSB throughout the article without "the" in front of them.
The reactions section contains many small paragraphs of only one sentence. These should be combined to make larger paragraphs.
What is Commons Park? Does it have an article? Is it necessary to mention in the lead, or is Broomfield, Colorado adequate? I say this because the rest of the article barely mentions Commons Park.
Thats it. Steelkamp (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I got all of these. The only point of disagreement is the date. That is important context that needs to go in the first sentence, i.e. the flight number is reoccurring, and the article is only about the occurrence on that date. I don't think putting it first is awkward, when you consider that many articles begin with: In [[context]] '''name''' is... Dhaluza (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that the reactions section would work better as prose, rather than as a list. MOS:PROSE says Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. Steelkamp (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, prose is generally preferable. But this section is an ongoing timeline, where the dates are important context. It's difficult to convert that to readable prose. Putting all the dates in the prose is awkward. You can convert to things like the next day, or four days later, but that can get awkward too. Dhaluza (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 2
 Verifiable with no original research

The flight crew began to complete checklists, including the engine fire checklist. As part of the checklist, the flight crew discharged both fire extinguisher bottles into the engine, but the engine fire warning did not extinguish until the airplane was on an extended downwind for landing. The flight crew continued to prepare for the emergency landing by completing additional critical checklists and verifying airplane performance for landing. They elected not to dump fuel for safety and time reasons and determined that the magnitude of the overweight landing was not significant enough to outweigh other considerations. – The reference doesn't support much of this paragraph.
An NTSB structures engineer and two investigators from the NTSB's Denver office collected fallen debris with local law enforcement and safety agencies over several days immediately after the incident. Most of the structure from the inlet cowl and fan cowl doors that separated from the aircraft was recovered and identified. Recovered portions of the inlet cowl, fan cowl door structure, and inlet cowl attach ring were laid out in a hangar (pictured). The inlet cowl, fan cowl doors, and thrust reversers will be examined further by NTSB to map damage and cowl failure patterns after the fan blade failure, and to examine the subsequent progression of fire in the thrust reversers. – Same with this paragraph (same reference).
Thats it. Steelkamp (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the refs that were pointing to the announcement rather than the document.  Dhaluza (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 3
 Broad in its coverage
Good. Steelkamp (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 4
 Neutral
Good. Steelkamp (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 5
 Stable
There are no edit wars or content disputes ongoing. This article passes criteria 5. – Steelkamp (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 6
 Illustrated, if possible
Good. Steelkamp (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)