Talk:Germanwings crash victims identified

Source duplication
editprotected It looks like both sources here list the same author. Although there's no evidence of inaccuracy, we should likely issue a correction noting the slip in standards. Thoughts? (Have tagged editprotected to prevent us losing track of this). BRS (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They're both listed as AFP. They're both sources that might plausibly syndicate from AFP.  The first source is visible and therefore we can see that it says it's from AFP.  The second source, though, is not available and appears not to have been archived on the Wayback Machine.  So we're left with a likelihood, but not a certainty, that the second source is from AFP.  --Pi zero (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

❌ It is unfortunate that it wasn't discovered that both sources trace back to AFP's newswire at the time of review, but I don't see what correction we can make. Unless, someone can demonstrate there's something incorrect in the article, I don't see a need for any action at this point. --SVTCobra 15:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We could say that the sources for this article unfortunately did not conform to the standards we intend to apply for mutually independent sources on synthesis articles; 'twould be similar to what we did re neutrality for Reports of at least fourteen dead this week due to gun-related suicides in the United States. --Pi zero (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Would this be acceptable? I don't like using the correction template for this:


 * Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Getting myself back up-to-speed on this case, I see that there's a difficulty with not actually knowing for sure whether or not the second source is really from AFP. The "AFP" on the second source, which (as of December 2016) I was unable to confirm or deny, could have resulted from a copy-and-paste operation from one source citation to another; stuff like that happens.  If we were going to put a note on it, I might consider using correction and, if we didn't feel it was worth categorizing, there's a  parameter; or, if we were going with a non-correction box, I'd want to include the date it was added; but it does seem problematic that we don't really know for certain that the second source was from AFP.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not worried about the category it shows up in. It the appearance of the correction template that would be misleading to the reader if we don't actually correct something. But you are saying use it if we remove AFP from the author field and use my suggestion if they both are the same source?
 * I googled this: "Germanwings site:skynews.com.au" ... found a bunch of articles, all by various news wires, but of course not the one we need. I did find this All 150 Germanwings crash victims identified which is the exact same title and written by AFP.
 * However, in other disturbing discoveries. The dates are wrong, they should be May, not April. And the ABC source is dated May 19, not 20.--SVTCobra 19:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead with a disclaimer for readers to realize it is not based on independent sources. That is based on the circumstantial evidence I found. If you disagree, do something else. I would rather move ahead and not let this linger any longer, because otherwise a couple of years will pass and then we have to spend time getting "back up-to-speed on this case" again. --SVTCobra 11:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Plausible indications. Closure achieved.  So be it.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)