Talk:Singapore Airlines Flight 006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former good article nomineeSingapore Airlines Flight 006 was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 31, 2008.
WikiProject iconSingapore Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore 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.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconTaiwan Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan 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.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Typo Alert - Filename of the embedded [runway] photo: "SA600 Runway.png" would be better-named as "SQ006 Runway.png"



Due to a "broken link" on another page, I created this stub. Then, on another list, I discovered

Singapore Airlines Flight 6. I fixed the link, now this article needs to be deleted. 216.164.138.57 13:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi, this is for the unknown editor who made changes on 1 Feb 06. IMHO, the insertions you made under 'Aftermath' should either be put in 'Findings' or 'Controversy', since they relate directly to the accident investigation and the controversy that ensued.

I am also concerned about the last 2 paragraphs you have inserted in 'Aftermath'. The paragraph quote "The SQ6 Captain , thought that the green centerline... runway edge lights for guidance in low visibility conditions." unquote is from Pg 135 of the ASC's final report and the paragraph quote "About 2245 on October 23, 2000, a MD-11 freighter had been given clearance to taxi... MD-11 Captain was conducted on Feb 16, 2001, and a second interview was conducted on July 19, 2001, at ASC headquarters." is from Pg 149 of the same report. Both paragraphs are almost verbatim copies, with small changes for readability.

I am no copyright guru but I think there is a cause for concern with regards to the last 2 paragraphs. I would suggest either to rewrite the paragraphs with minimal quotes or remove them altogether, as the ASC report is not public domain.Neofaun 14:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CVR transcript

I removed the CVR transcript from this entry and added an external link to a CVR/ATC transcript at the end of the article. Although I respect the efforts of whoever attempted to present a "cut" version of the transcript in this article, it's not particularly illuminating for those using the article as a general reference source, and those who are interested can easily visit the external CVR/ATC source (as is done in most other aircraft incident articles). Let me know if there are significant issues with this. plmoknijb 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get archives of the articles cited here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oddnews/message/210 WhisperToMe 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Coffins of decesed.jpg

fair use
.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sq6wreckagejpg.jpg

fair use
.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

talk) 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This article is not ready for GAN

Although I would love to see this article attain

GA
status, in its current state, it is sorely not ready. There are several major issues with the article, which include, but are not limited to:

  • The article is poorly organised. There are far too many one-sentence paragraphs; in fact, there is a section - "Film" - with only one sentence. Details about the casualties are excessive. Consider merging sections like "Investigation findings" and "Contesting investigation findings".
  • Most of the citations are not
    properly formatted
    . Citations should go after a punctuation mark, with no spaces in between, and should not merely be links without citation information.
  • fair use rationale
    .

I suggest that the GA nomination be withdrawn or failed. Once the issues have been addressed, file a peer review and then renominate the article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, and have failed this GAN. A few more things; way too many external links, which could be used as references. Also, the ref placement is a problem, as are the standalone paragraphs/sentences. Also, I think there is an overuse of images which may not really be "educational"...best to remove the fair use images, regardless, and just go with free.
Anyways, feel free to contact me or J.L.W.S. when you've fixed some of these issues, if you want more comments. I haven't watchlisted this page, but you can contact my talk page if you want me to take a look at anything or reply to anything. Cheers,
H20) 09:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relative to wrong use of runways

An example is Western Airlines Flight 2605, which attempted to land in the wrong runway and crashed into parked vehicles. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.171.16.174 (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A story regarding a survivor of the crash

Web link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/jobs/21boss.html

I hope someone can incorporate the above story into this Wikipedia article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Singapore Airlines Flight 006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 01:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Singapore Airlines Flight 006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

article is unclear about runways

The article is unclear about runways. It shows 05R and 05L on one side of the terminals. The Taoyuan_International_Airport article shows 05R on one side of the terminals, the terminals in the middle, and 05L on the other side of the terminals.

Was the runway configuration different than it is now?

Vanguard10 (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Singapore Airlines Flight 006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Singapore Airlines Flight 006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Singapore Airlines Flight 006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror of final accident report

I found it was posted to http://web.archive.org/web/20040617235344/http://hotftp.hinet.net/files/asc/SQ006_ENG.pdf , linked by the ASC WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional video content

The Singapore newspaper Lianhe Zaobao uploaded to YouTube an interview with a former flight attendant who survived SQ006, Farzana Abdul Razak

  • "《封面人物》第3集 SQ006空姐Farzana：那时我无法原谅 The Newsmaker Ep 3: SQ006's Farzana offers apology to pilots". Lianhe Zaobao. 2019-03-29.

It is in Mandarin and English, with alternate audio in each and subtitles in both (Farzana was interviewed in English but much of the commentary was in Mandarin) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speed

A huge detail missing from the crash description is the aircraft's speed at the point of impact. Did they reach V1, etc.? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When was aircraft 9V-SPL repainted?

In the section, Aftermath, it states, "After the accident, 9V-SPL, the sister aircraft painted with the same livery, was immediately removed from service and repainted with standard Singapore Airlines livery." This is contradicted by the date (18 November 2000) of the photo that shows 9V-SPL with the said livery at Paris - Charles de Gaulle. —⁠71.105.198.152 (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The closest answer source I could get is from an online forum, where a member claimed that the plane got repainted in December 2000. I have the link if you would like to see that, but I don't think it's a good idea to drop it here. Naufal Praw (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info box image change.

I have twice reverted a recent image change to this article. I have suggested that such changes should be discussed first as appears customary and sensible in most cases for aircrash articles. The proposed image is much more busy than the current one and I see no need for a change, nor was a reason given. And the place the suggested photograph was taken is of no interest to this article so including this in the caption is not necessary.Maungapohatu (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore_Airlines_Flight_006&oldid=1225548999"