Talk:Airbus A380 safety test injures 33

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

the A380 is also almost twice as large as the current largest airliner, the Boeing 747, however I didn't see a great place to work that in. If someone thinks of something, please edit. --Sfullenwider 00:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The A380 will be the world's largest passenger airliner, almost twice as large as the current largest airliner, the Boeing 747., and sourced referenced! Thanks for including comments here. Karen 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Confusing headline[edit]

I understand that there are expected to be some injuries in any evacuation, but to the average reader it seems a bit contradictory.

I agree - but can't think of anything better... Dan100 (Talk) 12:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to imply that the test was unofficially passsed. Thus, the headline should be Airbus A380 safety test injures 33. Karen 22:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

After all those other renames, I hope my suggested headline (which I just put into effect) does the job. Source makes clear that test wasn't officially passed, so headline was changed so it wouldn't be misleading or confusing.Karen 00:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Major reporting agencies, indeed most reporting agencies, reported the test as passed so I wrote it here as passed. The results merely need to be confirmed at this point, which most analysists say they will. --Sfullenwider 03:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
As was suspected, the A380 passed. --Sfullenwider 03:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What to do? Adjust this article or write a new one? I would say we adjust this one. Publication should probably have been delayed until the news was out, as this is the "news" item of the article. --vonbergm 05:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's some of the story headlines from various agencies sorted in order:

  • 33 hurt, but huge Airbus passes evacuation test
  • 33 injured in Airbus A380 evacuation drill
  • 33 people injured in super-jumbo drill
  • A380 Successfully Completes Evacuation Test
  • A380 completes evacuation test
  • A380 facing key evacuation drill
  • A380 holds first evacuation drill
  • A380 passes evacuation test
  • Airbus A380 evacuation drill causes 33 injuries
  • Airbus A380 evacuation test: Flight exclusive from onboard the aircraft
  • Airbus A380 superjumbo passes key evacuation drill; 33 injured
  • Airbus A380, superjumbo passenger plane, passes safety test
  • Airbus says A380 passes evacuation drill; 33 hurt
  • Airbus says A380 passes key evacuation drill
  • Airbus says A380 passes key evacuation drill; 33 injured
  • Airbus: A380 passes key drill; 33 injured
  • Dozens injured during Airbus drill
  • Dozens injured during Airbus superjumbo drill
  • Jumbo Jet Evacuation Drill Injures 33
  • Test pleases Airbus
  • Volunteers injured in A380 drill

Some are only about passing the test, some are only about the injuries, others are about both.

Headlines that stated test passed: 10 of 21
Headlines that mention injuries:   12 of 21

In my opinion, the story that was reported was about the test and injuries, not to speculate that it passed. Adding one line at this point to say that the test was confirmed passed by the European Aviation Safety Agency will be factual. Adding much more to this story beyond that confirmation fact would probably be encouraging a split. If there's more material than the confirmation, write a new story. Karen 06:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to meet the requirements of npov, we must indicate that the test was passed in the headline, so I've moved the article back. Dan100 (Talk) 07:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Explain and support why the headline must be moved back to become neutral before moving it back - after all, the test wasn't passed when the story was written. As I've demonstrated, most other headlines did not indicate the test was passed, either. In fact more of the headlines mention the injuries than the passing of the test. Karen 13:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And everyone kindly refrain from renaming to "Airbus A380 passes safety test, but 33 injured". That involves two independent clauses, the second of which is in passive voice. Use "Airbus A380 passes safety test, but 33 suffer injuries", please. Or something which is entirely in present tense, active voice.
And about the substance: read the sources. Airbus initially said the test was a success. Nobody was claimed to have disputed that.
67-21-48-122 14:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

bias and misleading title opinion[edit]

The title seem to me sensational and misleading. I expected to read an article about how a standard test turned out badly for Airbus, when in fact the article was descriptive of a standard test, which they passed by managing to get 853 passengers out of the plane in 80 seconds with the lights out and half the doors closed. pretty awesome. 32 people got rub burns, 1 accidently broke their leg, and 820 got out without a scrape. Any variation of "Test Injures 33" is less descriptive than "Test evacuates 853 [in record time]". Placing the company name in the title with connotations of failure or success would also not my preference.

Thanks for the article though!

[I have moved the above paragraph of unidentified authorship so that it would not be lost during the renaming confusion.] — 67-21-48-122 15:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

One person was confused about a test passing, but with injuries, and one thought the headline described 33 people being injured "badly" and sensationalized.

For the first person, the issue was addressed by removing the inference that the test had passed. Stating that it had passed was also misleading at the time, unless "unofficially passed" or as another headline suggested, that Airbus was "pleased" with the results of the test. However, "Airbus A380 safety test injures 33, Airbus pleased" might suggest Airbus is pleased with injuries. So since at the time the test wasn't officially passed, the title was made to describe that 33 people were injured in a safety test.

For the second person who thought it was sensationalized, one just has to read the first paragraph. The headline was factual and simple - the implication was in the mind of that reader, just as the confusion over the first version of the headline was for the first reader. The story headline isn't meant to imply failure or success, just report the injuries and how they came to be. The ultimate success (test passing officially) came the next day, so as the majority of headlines didn't imply the test had officially passed. Although "Test evacuates 853 [in record time]" is more descriptive, it requires researching as to if that is a record - it seems reasonable to assume it is, given this plane is the largest yet. But the story isn't about a record or a test passing or failing, it's about a plane being tested resulting in 33 injuries, one of which wasn't minor, none of which were life-threatening.

Some of the headlines I sampled did in fact more strongly place Airbus in the headline with connotations of failure or success; the current headline (Airbus A380 safety test injures 33) doesn't address the test and the story indicates 33 injured, but overall success. It's in the median as far as headlines go - you'd certainly object to some of the other headlines listed for the same reasons. But I object to headlines which imply official success (ie. test passed) before the fact, as nearly half of the headlines I sampled did.

Based on the circumstances demonstrated, the NPOV arguement isn't factually valid. It's clear there is no agenda to make readers jump to the conclusion that the test went badly because of 33 injuries - an assumption made by the reader is corrected quickly, within the first paragraph of the story.

Given some research, others might find the best headline for this story, but it'd be more than a day after it was published. Given that we now know the test officially passed, we could change the headline to state that, but only if we change a sentence ("The European Aviation Safety Agency will confirm the test results this week; Airbus intends to repeat the test Saturday if the aviation agency fails this attempt." ) and the publication date from March 27, 2006 to March 28, 2006.

But without making those changes, I'll continue to object to a headline that implies that the test officially passed. I do not object to a headline that suggests that the test was a success for Airbus, however. That sort of speculation about the passed test and initial confusion about the original headline is why I changed it. Unattributed speculation is why this sentence was removed quickly after it was added: "It is speculated that the inflatable escape chute design needs to be modified for the larger aircraft." Karen 17:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

New catagory[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please add the new Category:Airbus A380 and change the picture from 350px to a normal size (no bigger than 250px needed). --89.247.83.196 (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)