Talk:C-130 Hercules crashes in Medan, Indonesia

On board

One source said that there were 113 people on board, while other says 122. This ambiguity needs to be rectified.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 05:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I try to fix this. —Sam.gov (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3651615 [Not ready]

Revision 3651615 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I'm honestly not comfortable with the mutual independence of these two sources. (I actually can't figure out what the later part of "AFP/rw/ec" stands for, though it's evidently a common designation of Channel NewsAsia articles.) Sources need to be used, of course, not just added retroactively; in adding some info, there should be opportunities for some freshening since there appears to be some slightly newer info available re possible cause (and it's worth checking for info on number of dead recovered, presumably). Note the above comment on discrepancy between sources. Also, when saying things like '62 bodies have been recovered' you should attribute, and perhaps otherwise qualify, it so the sentence can remain true if more bodies have actually been found by the time we publish. I notice the phrase "airasia jet crashed in the java sea killing all 162 people on board" is substantially copied from source (though a bit of it is just slightly scuffed up; see WN:PILLARS#own). You could cite Wikinews's article on that story, by listing it in a Related news section, and simply copy a phrase from that article (since it's a Wikinews article, as long as you cite it you can copy from it freely). Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 3651615 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I'm honestly not comfortable with the mutual independence of these two sources. (I actually can't figure out what the later part of "AFP/rw/ec" stands for, though it's evidently a common designation of Channel NewsAsia articles.) Sources need to be used, of course, not just added retroactively; in adding some info, there should be opportunities for some freshening since there appears to be some slightly newer info available re possible cause (and it's worth checking for info on number of dead recovered, presumably). Note the above comment on discrepancy between sources. Also, when saying things like '62 bodies have been recovered' you should attribute, and perhaps otherwise qualify, it so the sentence can remain true if more bodies have actually been found by the time we publish. I notice the phrase "airasia jet crashed in the java sea killing all 162 people on board" is substantially copied from source (though a bit of it is just slightly scuffed up; see WN:PILLARS#own). You could cite Wikinews's article on that story, by listing it in a Related news section, and simply copy a phrase from that article (since it's a Wikinews article, as long as you cite it you can copy from it freely). Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

@Pi zero: I believe I fixed the issues. Submitted for review. —Sam.gov (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3652904 [Passed]

Revision 3652904 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 3652904 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.