Talk:Turkish Airlines Flight 1476

message: (1)  Is the article well written?
This article reads very easily and progresses in a completely logical fashion.  The distinctions between sections divide very important components associated with the hijacking.  Clearly, the article was written for the average user and even when talking about things like the "squawk code" used for hijackings, it was not hard to understand.  Although this article is excellent, there are some areas for improvement. It should be noted the following are suggestions to improve the article, but not to fail this article as a "Good Article."  The last point is the most important point to address.
These are areas for improvement:
* clearly note that this affair is still being processed by the judicial system,
* discuss the compensation issue more completely if there is more,
* and more clearly discuss the international reaction to this event.
(2)  Is the article factually accurate and verifiable?
This article is phenomenally well referenced, albeit with articles from news sources.  It appears quite verifiable, although the links for the news sources may change, which inevitably happens and always looks bad.  So, there might have to be a more rigorous citation style used.  I would employ the use of MLA here or some offshoot of MLA that can be used to track down the sources for this article.
(3)  Is the article broad in its coverage?
This is a somewhat narrow incident, so it's understandable that this doesn't reference something obscenely broad, but at the same time there is one section that I would like to see here:
* a discussion of international reaction to this incident.
(4)  Does the article follow the neutral point of view policy?
Yes, as far as I can tell.
(5)  Is the article stable?
Given the history of the article so far, it appears this article is quite stable.  My review here accepts the fact that this article has only been around for a short period of time and predicts this article will be stable in the long-term.
(6) Does the article use images appropriately?
This is the only major concern I have, and my major reason to put this article "on hold."  It seems like the picture of the Pope is a bit frivolous, although not distracting.  If this article were to be considered a "Good Article" it might include things like:
* a map detailing the flight path and area affected (very important),
* a photo of the hijacker,
* the logo of the airline involved,
* and/or a photo of the plane involved.
Review Conclusion - When the images section is fixed, the international reaction section is added, and the references use a more robust citation style, this article would definitely be an excellent Good Article submission.  For now, until those things are changed, I will place this on hold, pending failure.
-Pg8p 10:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the images go very well with this article.  Well done!  When I say the links may "go dead" I am talking about the possibility that the link may no longer point to material it currently points to.  It's not a good way to effectively cite sources.  However, I think it's reasonable for wikipedia.Pg8p 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Your point is valuable.  Pg8p 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Links were being used, so I reffered to 6A of WP:WIAGA, but this concern has been fixed since the new pictures work very well.  Thanks for your input!  Pg8p 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Nomination - On Hold, Pending Failure

message: Undated interview with pilot. Location (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: For future reference