This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
The defence case seems to rest on the claim that Hill was incapacitated, or at least impaired, by the g-forces of the manoeuvre. A brief news clip, like that ITV snippet, can't properly examine the exact timeline of those g-forces (which may or may not have been accurately recorded for later scrutiny) nor with the issue of whether the incapacitation was recklessly, or unintentionally, self-inflicted.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
23:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Well after getting round to this accident as I was doing ofhers earlier. The prosecution is still occurring as the pilot has appealed the courts judgment, so until then we’ll see what happens.
OrbitalEnd48401 (
talk)
10:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): I am very happy with spelling and grammar. Prose is quite clear and does not use a lot of technical language and understandable to a broad audience. However can you please rephrase this line: Hill, the pilot, was thrown clear of the aircraft in his ejection seat, which was live when the aircraft departed from North Weald.
@
Mjroots: Thanks so much for making these changes! After reviewing the criteria, I am confident that no further changes are needed so I am passing this article. Thanks again for your cooperation during theis review. Have a great day!
Trains2050 (
talk)
17:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article, which was started on the date of the crash, was nominated on 8 March 2023, the date it was approved as a Good Article.
I have reviewed the Good Article review, and all seems to be in order.
Both hooks are accurate and are supported by various reliable sources.
Good-quality sources are used throughout. The quality of the prose is also good.
Unfortunately, the article was featured in the prose section of the "On this day" section of the Main Page on 22 August 2022 (
link), which makes it ineligible for DYK on the face of it (based on
DYK criterion 1c). A shame, as this is clearly a high-quality and important article which would benefit from appearing again on the Main Page, especially since significant further developments have happened since August 2022 in relation to the inquest. I wonder if we could invoke
WP:IAR in view of this...?
Let's get some more thoughts on this from experienced DYK personnel. I would be happy to support the article appearing on DYK despite its appearance at "On This Day" within the last year, in view of the updates which have happened since then. In its present state the article and both hooks are suitable for DYK except for this issue. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)22:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Theleekycauldron: Nah, just withdraw. When I nominated this I didn't realize it had been on OTD last year. I think I saw that it appeared in 2020 and thought that it was okay without realizing that it appeared last year.
Onegreatjoke (
talk)
02:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply