Not self-nom; I had nothing to do with this article, but IMHO it is extremely well written, has relevant and interesting photos, and above all, it's quite a great tale. -- Fo0bar 07:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Object – no references, lead too short. Last section also too short. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Object: needs to be more comprehensive for a FA. For example, more information is required on the aftermath; investigations into aviation incidents are usually involved and complex. What was learnt from the investigation? Did heads roll? Not all measurements include the metric equivalent, and the vexed process of metric conversion in Canada (from 1984?) might be relevant, and requires mention.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 ( talk • contribs) 16:03, September 26, 2005

• Object. The image Image:Gimlix.jpg has no source or copyright information. -- Carnildo 20:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Object. I copyedited the article some time ago (including breaking the middle section into sub-sections). Nevertheless, much of it read more like a story/essay than an encyclopedia article. Someone needs to look into the wording and change it appropriately. Pentawing 20:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support. Engrossing article. More images would be nice, though. It would be good to get permission for a photo similar to the removed image [1]. I have sent a request to another photographer to see if we can include [2] instead. Pburka 15:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Slight support The article can be enhanced (improving its structure and readability), but this aviation event is interesting and definitely worth noting. E Pluribus Anthony 07:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply