Talk:False dawn for Air France flight; debris not from crash, search continues

title

How about False dawn for Air France flight; debris not from crash, search continues. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I like that (if like is the right word for such grim news). I will move it there but I'm going to finish the content first. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Like is the right word. The story may be grim, but how it is told is important. A key part of that is an intriguing title. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

Revision 829559 of this article has been reviewed by Meekel (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Fantastic article. --Meekel (TalkToMe) 10:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 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 829559 of this article has been reviewed by Meekel (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Fantastic article. --Meekel (TalkToMe) 10:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 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.

Airbus cat

I am unsure why this category was removed. From the category page: "Note that in most cases it is NOT apropriate for accidents and incidents involving Airbus aircraft to be included in this category, unless there is a direct impact on the company." I daresay most of you will agree a better wording that I didn't think of at the time would have been 'involvement of' instead of 'impact on' but the idea remains the same; and there is a strong argument that any involvement at all means there must be some impact. From the article: "Airbus have reminded all A330 operators of correct operating procedures in extreme weather conditions." That is a new development today (although it was expected since yesterday). Based on this, I am re-adding the category pending an explanation. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the category, sorry about that. Based on the way the category page comments were phrased, I was under the impression that the cat should only be used if Airbus was being blamed for the accident, which doesn't seem to be the case in this article. Maybe the cat page should be rephrased to make that clearer. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, looks like your thinking about a reword for the cat too) No worries, I was just a little confused myself. I understand you now. I'll add that reword I proposed above, and try and think of a way of making usage clearer (help welcome!). You were right to follow what you felt was the correct interpretation, it is confusing (I'm allowed to slag it off. I wrote it ;-). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be more where it is news about Airbus - in much the same way as, apart from geeks, nobody really blames Microsoft when a laptop full of sensitive data gets lost or stolen. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to get that accross in a way a newcomer would understand; specifically, most accidents/incidents are not about the airframer. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)