Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

@Tigerdude9: Thank you for providing a better image of the aircraft for the infobox. Are you sure that the image has been authorized? Who did you get permission from and how did you go about uploading it? You need to provide evidence of copyright approval and then someone has to review it and store it in the permission archive before you can be authorized to add a file to Wikimedia Commons. I've never done this myself, but I'm sure you're not supposed to just upload a file and say "I have permission from the owner to use the image" which, frankly, anyone could say. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the image is authorized. I emailed the owner asking for permission, he said yes, I chose the correct settings and yeah it's authorized. Also, I'll try to say something better when I do edits like these. You are welcome. Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tigerdude9: File:PR-GTD at Rio-.jpg has been removed by an administrator at Wikimedia Commons because it has been identified as "non-free fair use content" and what we need is a "public-domain or suitably licensed" image. Like I said before, It is not sufficient to simply state that you got permission from the owner without going through the correct channels to get it included in the Commons repository. If you want some advice about doing this, please go to the Commons help desk. It would be great if we could use your image, it really would, but it needs to be legitimate and at the moment it isn't. As for the CGI replacement, that's been found to be unsuitable before (as explained by MilborneOne in a previous edit) so I've replaced it for now with another Boeing 737-8EH that looks like the accident aircraft. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gol Linhas Aéreas Inteligentes which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Captain:SHIT WERE FALLING co-pilot:I SEE THAT DO SOMETHING Captain:IM TRYING co-pilot:CHARLI PULL UP Captain:I KNOW IM TRYING TO the recording was off but we can see or hear the explosion hidden reasons the Captain was Charlie and the co-pilot was nelson the alarm system might have been broken because a weird alarm went off There might have been more but this info is the only one u can get there was 90 passengers and 5 survived the plane was klm but the passengers can't get info they were injured badly. 24.184.84.207 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Is that from a transcript of the black box recording? If so could a link to the transcript be included in the page? Also you say there were five survivors, did they die later from injuries? Please, can you describe the weird alarm further? Thanks!👍 Bucky winter soldier (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you confused this accident with a different one. Scs52 (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

For this article to retain its featured article status, the issues raised below will need to be addressed. From the featured article criteria:

1. It is:
   1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; Y
   2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; Y
   3. well-researched:
      1. it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; N
         1. There are a plethora of studies on this accident but the article majoritarily cites the official reports or news coverage of the event.
      2. claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; N
         1. Multiple uncited statements/paragraphs.
   4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; Y
   5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; Y and
   6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. Y Copyvios reports a 60.1% similarity but the highlighted areas are used as quotes within limit so no problems here.
2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
   1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; Y
   2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; Y and
   3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. N: As of this revision, for example, #3 links to the Flight Safety Foundation while #6 doesn't. Citations containing the "work"/"publisher"/"agency" parameters should usually(?) be linked to their corresponding articles. Citations #53 and #68 should be formatted as |work=Fox News/NDTV |agency=The Associated Press
3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Y
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate. Y

Formatting the citations should be easy, but there needs to be more work on addressing the ^{[citation needed]} tags and citing scholarly literature. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Aviationwikiflight: Hello. Other than the citation problem, does there seem to be any other issues with the article? I plan to make this article a featured article once again. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

After re-evaluating the article, it seems like all content is sourced now, given that it has been 6 months. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

1.c. [It is] well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; From the FAR: "It currently strings together contemporary sources instead of using secondary analysis."; "...there are many more higher-quality sources that are not used in the article that should be considered." See Google Scholar (). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Does 2006 Peixoto de Azevedo Mid Air Collision make more sense? ~2026-34421-64 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think so, as it’s a normal convention to name articles about air disasters after the flight number. I personally don’t see any harm in creating the above as a redirect though? Not all that well versed in policies about redirects Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The TA does have a point, the title only mentions one of the involved aircraft. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 00:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)