Talk:Small plane crashes near Maryland airport, killing six

Proposed changes
Extensive changes were submitted. I tried to review them, but there were significant problems and, additionally, the changes weren't incremental so I really couldn't sort out what had been changed &mdash; it was as if a whole new article on the subject had been submitted. Keep in mind that although the software does support reviewing post-publication edits, it doesn't do so as easily as it supports pre-publication review. (And pre-publication review already isn't all that easy.) I may have missed some key point, but those are some major ones that come to mind. --Pi zero (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not put a banner at the top that says "this is an update" &mdash; we have a review system in place so that edits made to an article do not immediately get published, instead they await review by an authorized reviewer. The banner just makes it harder for a reviewer to use a diff to tell what was changed, so that the reviewer can then assess the change to accept, amend, or decline it.  For example, here's the diff for the first of the edits submitted in this case:  ; there's no useful comparison there, no visible small change to the text to consider while knowing that everything else is unchanged.
 * Try not to change stuff gratuitously &mdash;minimize changes to what matters&mdash; and don't change lots of things all at once. The above diff seems to be doing both.  For example, if you want to say in the lede that it was county officials, rather than just saying officials, make that change without changing lots of other things in the article at the same time, and a reviewer can then investigate that particular point in the sources to see if it's verifiable.  (Off hand, having reviewed the sources when publishing the article in the first place, I'm not at all sure whether that particular change would turn out to be verifiable, since county officials would be distinct from city officials or FAA/NTSB officials.)  And if, for some reason or other, you feel a need to completely rearrange the order of thoughts in the lede (I don't know why that's needful), please make that a separate edit so that, again, it can be sorted out using diffs in the.
 * External links are not permitted in the body of an article; only wikilinks, which should use w. Those things should be either in the sources section, or in an External links section at the bottom (the style guide, which really all contributors should read, explains about the External links section, in its usual succinct way), or they should be omitted.  Putting those external links in the body of the article is placing a burden on the reviewer to remove them and figure out whether they should have been put somewhere else or should simply be omitted &mdash; which the reviewer shouldn't have to sort out, especially in the context of an awkward post-publication review.