Former featured article candidateGermanwings Flight 9525 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleGermanwings Flight 9525 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 13, 2015Good article nomineeListed
March 10, 2023Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 24, 2015.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 24, 2016.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Featured article candidacy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 March 2023 [1].


Germanwings Flight 9525[edit]

Nominator(s): Prhartcom (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the infamous crash of a commercial jet aircraft because of suicide by pilot.

I brought this article to GA years ago and ensured it has accurately improved over the years. I believe it is ready for FA. Tell me what you think. Prhartcom (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a455bcd9[edit]

Do we have the datasource for File:Altitude Chart for Flight 4U9525 register D-AIPX.svg? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just asked User talk:Justass for this. I see that they are not active much anymore but I hope they reply. It appears to be derivative of the facts that are stated in the article, though. 13:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Prhartcom (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it from this? - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find, SchroCat; I have added this to the article. I also found this, which was already in the article. Hope this is okay, a455bcd9. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these two graphs are strictly identical to ours: is that still fine? If it is, the source we choose (one of these two) should be added on Commons. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Prhartcom and A455bcd9: Is this fixed now? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Putting down a marker. - SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Done. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Flight
That would be great, but it turned out the words were written by the anonymous author of the Air News article. I have removed the quotes for now, but we may need to excise this from the article. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be removed: you can go with "According to Air News..." as long as it's attributed to something. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft
I got exited by this idea and tried it, then was surprised to find it was better left the way it is. Try reading it as if it was moved and you will see what I mean. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Investigation
It was worse than that; the first link was a redirect from the bureau name in French. Fixed and removed second link. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cause of crash
Done. But for your third point. I reversed the "six weeks later" and the date; I think its (hopefuly) better? Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Investigation of Lubitz
Done. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Political
But Wiktionary doesn't say that's BrEng. If you are certain, then we should change Wiktionary as well. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't trust Wiktionary as far as I could throw it! I go by the OED, which hyphenates. In BrEng the hyphen is used where two vowels may be pronounced incorrectly, so co-operate with two sounds isn't pronounced as coop. - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial
And that was a redirected link from half mast to half-mast as well. Fixed. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regulatory
Changed to "CEO Spohr"; hope it is it okay. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it a false title. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Compensation
Done, except I am confused by the first point; what do you mean? Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - that was unclear: I meant that instead of "deliberately crashed the passenger aircraft" you should have "deliberately crashed the aircraft". - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
Checking into this. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps! It's all superficial little things, so I'm leaning heavily towards support. It's a good read – very tightly written with nothing overly-detailed or extraneous. – SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your encouraging review, SchroCat! Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prhartcom, have all of SchroCat's comments been addressed? If so, could you ping them? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe[edit]

  1. The lead length seems a bit too long compared to the body length. I would consider trimming the lead slightly.
  2. Why are there some citations but not consistently cited in the lead? I would go with citing only things that aren't cited in the body, this is the standard way to do it at FAC.

(t · c) buidhe 19:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; checking into this. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prhartcom, how is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

I saw this episode of Air Crash Investigation.

In all, very good work on an incident well worth documenting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

Add col scopes and row scopes to the table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, article is succinct, seems comprehensive and generally okay prose-wise, allowing for some short paragraphs/subsections. I copyedited so let me know if you think I misunderstood anything -- other points:

Spotcheck of sources (this version) for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing:

Based on the above spotcheck, unless I have missed anything, I would have to oppose -- out of ten checks three are clean, two I couldn't tell and five are problematic in some form, so I think the nominator needs to go over all the refs before a second spotcheck is performed to see how things have improved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Suicide[edit]

Doesn't seem really like a suicide to me. I mean, at least not primarily. There are plenty of ways to kill yourself that don't involve causing the brutal screaming death of hundreds of random other people. If he were just suicidal, one imagines he would have done that; I think this was more of a mass murder that happened to incidentally kill the guy. jp×g🗯️ 23:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree. Suicide by pilot says, it's lead section: "If others are killed, it may be considered a type of murder–suicide." Does the official report deliberately exclude this description as inappropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is utterly absurd to describe the death of 150 individuals as 'suicide' due to the actions of one of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that it was one person who died by suicide, and 149 people who were murdered. Dolphin (t) 11:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, use of the term "suicide" alone suggests that the pilot simply killed himself in the cockpit and allowed the aircraft to subsequently crash. Perhaps he did kill himself first. Not sure how that could be determined. He was still legally in control of the aircraft, so even that scenario would probably be viewed as mass murder. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this may be all so much WP:OR. The key sentence in the article (supported by a quotation) is this:
"The BEA final report into the crash was published on 13 March 2016. The report confirmed the findings made in the preliminary report and concluded that Lubitz had deliberately crashed the aircraft as a suicidal murder.
Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]