Talk:Jabiru J430
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jabiru J430 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]This article needs more major work on it! I got quite angry, (unreasonably?), while applying the template, that the original writer had done such a poor job. I have started to sort it out but I'm afraid someone else is going to have to finish the job!Petebutt (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks AHunt!Petebutt (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Crash
[edit]In a recent incident, the wings of a Jabiru 450 apparently came off after a "sudden manoeuvre", causing a fatal crash. I added a brief description (quoted below); it was reverted with the edit summary "Tragic as this sorts of accidents are they are commonplace and not notable, please see WP:AIRCRASH for the inclusion criteria".
The guideline is clear, and the reversion accorded with it; this is not a complaint. However, I would suggest that a purpose of any encycopaedia is to be useful (I don't know if this is in any formal Wikipedia guideline). Insofar as documenting past events or the history of something, this accident is indeed trivial and not of long-term significance unless it gives rise to changes (per WP:AIRCRASH). However, the encyclopaedia is consulted by people for all sorts of reasons. In particular I would argue that the details of this event are relevant to anyone considering purchasing or travelling in a light aircraft. Obviously, facts only must be stated, not opinion. I would suggest that guideline WP:AIRCRASH, a guideline not a rule, is perhaps overridden by the need to be useful, and that this section belongs in the article, and will continue to do so for the useful like of this design (or until superseded by newer developments). I do not myself propose to reinstate it, but if others agree maybe they will. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The section in question:

