212:
progresses, most information will be added to the search article, not here. As far as finding the aircraft and this article needing to be expanded with information about the causes of the accident, you have to consider the time-frame and how much content needs to be added at what point. If pieces of the aircraft are found tomorrow, it will take weeks to map the debris field, after which officials will determine which pieces are a priority to raise and analyze. At that point, there really would not be much to add to this article beyond adding the coordinates and changing some sentences to reflect that the aircraft did crash and that the location is known. That alone will take a few months. Some details
42:
217:
time, that would require just a little addition of content to this article. The article will need to be expanded with a modest amount of content when the final report (or any significant preliminary report) is released and it will take a year or, likely, a few years for the investigation to be conducted once the aircraft is found. Of course, this all depends on the aircraft
221:. Therefore, if promoted to a GA, the GA status would not be threatened by the aircraft being found, so long as editors add new information (info about the search goes in the search article). The article may fall below GA status if it is not updated quickly after the final report is issued, but that may not occur for several years.
211:
Now on to the other stability issue. The plane hasn't been found and there's still a search going on for it, so major changes will be made to this article, right? Not exactly. First of all, there is a separate article for the search and only a summary style-section is in this article. As the search
198:
For future reference I am including the following notes about the page stability to this review page. In the event the aircraft is located, the following explains to that the article will likely not fall below GA unless there is a substantial amount of new details that should be in the article and
216:
emerge as the wreckage is explored and raised, for example only one body may be in the cockpit, suggesting a hijacking, or the oxygen masks may have been deployed, supporting the hypoxia scenario. Most likely, however, there will only be a few details, disclosed/learned over an extended period of
169:
It covered literally all the topics and the main aspects of the topic is well-written. The article has a very neutral point on view about the flight incident and is a fixed incident since it already happened a year ago with no new activities currently present.
183:(18 February 2015; it will probably be archived to archive 21 or 22 of that page). Some questioned whether this was a sufficient review, but the consensus was that the article deserves the GA rating and reassessment is not needed.
199:
those details aren't added to the article in a reasonable amount of time. However, the article will not drop below GA status just because the aircraft is found because most details will belong in
47:
126:
122:
107:
52:
80:
99:
70:
207:
on 22 January 2015, under the heading "Notes for the Good
Article review" (that discussion will probably be archived to archive 10 or 11 of that page):
200:
180:
156:
204:
115:
17:
75:
92:
150:
166:
It has good references and suitable inline citations and also didn't contain any original research.
233:
192:
160:
229:
188:
146:
225:
184:
203:
and not this article. The following is an excerpt of a post by me on
181:
Knowledge talk:Good article nominations#Another doubtful GA review
134:
103:
209:
8:
30:
174:Additional information about this review
201:Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
61:
33:
7:
179:Note: This review was discussed at
24:
205:Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
18:Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
1:
234:17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
193:17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
161:16:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
249:
223:
195:
89:
88:
240:
178:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
248:
247:
243:
242:
241:
239:
238:
237:
176:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
246:
244:
175:
172:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
245:
236:
235:
231:
227:
222:
220:
215:
208:
206:
202:
196:
194:
190:
186:
182:
173:
171:
167:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
224:
218:
213:
210:
197:
177:
168:
164:
153:
147:Vincent60030
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
219:being found
104:visual edit
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
157:contribs
76:Criteria
226:AHeneen
185:AHeneen
127:history
108:history
94:Article
136:Watch
16:<
230:talk
189:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
214:may
232:)
191:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
228:(
187:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.