Talk:Flight lands safely with help from mobile phone text messages

Pass

Revision {{{revid}}} of this article has been reviewed by The Mind's Eye (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Wow. It is really good. Really thorough. 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 {{{revid}}} of this article has been reviewed by The Mind's Eye (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Wow. It is really good. Really thorough. 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.

Quote

Quoted sentence at the beginning of the third paragraph is a sentence fragment. Subject with no predicate. Predicate appears to come as a second quote, a separate sentence at the end of that paragraph. Is the quote accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.82.34 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote is verified as accurate. It is in the accident report listed in sources. Any grammatical errors are on the part of the author, though I must admit, I do not see the problem that you see. --SVTCobra 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid my knowledge of English grammar isn't sufficient to understand this issue but I'd thank the user for raising this and would invite them to explain further. Cheers. Adambro (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the "initiative" is the subject of the first sentence, but it doesn't have an associated verb (which is a necessary part of the predicate). Therefore we never find out what the "initiative" is supposed to have done (at least, not until the next sentence) making it a sentence fragment. At first I thought this came from one of the secondary sources splitting it up incorrectly, but I checked and it is broken up in the original report. Not sure what we should do, since it is in the original source, but it's a pretty big error once you notice it. Plus having the attribution between the two sentences seems to make it worse. the wub "?!" 13:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)