Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Boeing 777 operators/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Giants2008 19:38, 22 February 2011 [1].
List of Boeing 777 operators[edit]
List of Boeing 777 operators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 06:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is very worthy of an FL status, given its stability and excellent referenced information. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 06:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- done Please unbold the words "Boeing 777" from the first sentence. From WP:BOLDTITLE, becaus it is not a verbatim quote of the article's name it should be in plain text. Also because it is wikilinked, which bold titles shouldn't (per the same MOS guideline)
- Information presented in the Lede that is not covered in more detail in the main body of the article requires referencing. There are a few sentences that need attention:
- done "is commonly referred to as 'Tripple Seven'."
- done "Able to accommodate between 301 and 365 passengers in a 3-class layout, the 777 has a range of 5,235 to 9,380 nautical miles (9,695 to 17,370 km), depending on model." (Unless reference [1] covers both of these.. it is a little unclear and reusing the ref would help if that's the case)
- done "Developed in consultation with eight major airlines, the 777 was designed to replace older wide-body airliners and bridge the capacity difference between the 767 and 747. As Boeing's first fly-by-wire airliner, it has computer mediated controls; it is also the first entirely computer-designed commercial aircraft." This entire part of the end of the paragraph is unsourced
- Most of the entire second paragraph appears unsourced, unless refs [2] and [3] are supposed to cover it all. If that's the case, they should be put in more specific places
- I actually did place a ref, just behind Other primary operators are Singapore Airlines (with 66 aircraft),[10] Air France (58)[11] and United Airlines (52),[12] the launch customer.
- The entire third paragraph is unsourced.
- done "depending on model" -- does this need a "the" before "model"?
- It says that Emirates plan to phase out the -200s, -200ERs and -300s by next month. If that's true, the article will undergo a lot of changes in the next few weeks as editors remove the aeroplanes from its entry. I'm not sure if this can be considered stable
- The table lists orders and deliveries, so even if an airline phases out the aircraft, the figures would remain the same.
- done "Following closely behind are Singapore Airlines (66),[7] Air France (58)[8] and United Airlines (52)," does this mean they will soon be removing them from their fleets, or that they are 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the numbers of aircraft?
- done Per WP:COLOR, you mustn't use only colours to present information to the reader. They may be colourblind, reading a black-and-white version, or whatever. There must be other visual identifies that all people can see in place of or as well as the colours. Something like daggers (†) would be fine. Matthewedwards : Chat 06:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second run (I pressed "save page" by accident)
- Why do you need visualisers to show that an airline has aircraft on order? the "Ordered" columns do that
- The entire table appears unsourced. Where did you get your figures?
- From the reference after following table lists of orders and deliveries of the aircraft as of December 2010.
- Are the figures given set to a specific date (in which case it should be mentioned somewhere), or does it include all 777s that the airlines have ever operated, including those that have been sold or loaned to other airlines, sent to an airplane graveyard or lost/crashed/destroyed?
- These are orders and deliveries figures. No website/book mentions the information that you listed above, and if they do, they would be out dated.
- done Are the planes that are owned by one company (such as GECAS or BOC) but leased by another company counted twice?
- No
- I'm not entirely sure that the totals and backlog rows at the bottom of the table are necessary. This is "List of Boeing 777 operators", not "List of Boeing 777s in existence or on order"
- doing The Lede doesn't sufficiently introduce the article. There are 3 paragraphs about the specifics of the aircraft, such as number of passengers, range and wheels(!), engines, etc. The first mention of an operator is the third paragraph, but only to tell us who ordered one of the planes first. Some information may be necessary, but most seems like it belongs at Boeing 777. Focus instead on some of the operators. Why did they chose this aircraft over the A330? Do they have long-standing purchase orders with Boeing over Airbus? What routes do the operators use them on? Who do GECAS loan them to? Etc Etc.
- Because the table isn't referenced, not only do we know whether the figures for the listed operators is correct, but we don't know if any are missing, such as Fed Ex or whatever.
- It is referenced.
At this time I don't think it's ready to be Featured, so it's an oppose from me for now. If you can make get everything referenced and refocus the Lede to match the subject, I'll be happy to consider supporting. Best, Matthewedwards : Chat 07:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I saw at WT:FAC#Is this up to scratch? you were told to fix the colours and referencing (and go to WP:Peer review before you nominated it here. Why at least did you not follow Courcelle's advice? Matthewedwards : Chat 07:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those suggestions were made after I last checked the page, so I had no ideat that somebody had actually commented on the issue.
- What you need to realise is, this has been extracted from Boeing 777, which is an FA article.
Comment if the maintenance tag is still on this article in the next 12 hours, I'll withdraw this nomination. Don't nominate an article and then overhaul it while you're expecting us to review it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done As at this version, the table appears to have some errors / inconsistencies:
- Air France, B777-300ER: 36 ordered, 234 delivered
- Business Jet / VIP Customer(s): 1×B777-200LR ordered and delivered plus 1×B777-300ER ordered and delivered, yet the totals show only one delivery to these customers
- Unidentified Customer(s): show 10 orders but only 9 deliveries in the main part of the table, but that doesn't match the totals which show all 10 have been delivered
If these inconsistencies are not errors but correct information then perhaps the explanations should be included. EdChem (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- Is there anything citing the ends of the second and third paragraphs? If not, why not?
- For the second paragraphy, the info is covered in refernce 1.
- done Customers: The last sentence doesn't need the italics; also, "included" should be "include".
- What makes Airlinergallery.nl (reference 1) a reliable source?
- It's there to indicate that the Boeing 777 is also known as the "Triple Seven".
- What makes CH-Aviation (several references) reliable?
- It is widely used on other airline articles, and updates its info regularly.
- done In reference 17, the publisher (Business Standard) should be italicized since it's a newspaper.
- done The bibliography should be in alphabetical order, by author. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- "Direct market competitors " are these referenced?
- If this is USEng, and you have "refueling", shouldn't "totalling" be "totaling"? I'm not sure...
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why isn't the table sortable? It strikes me that this information would be far more usefully presented if I could rearrange the table to show me which operator has the most of each type of this plane, and overall.
- Because there are coloured rows, so making it sortable is not possible. Maybe I should rid of the colours, leaving the dagges and asterisks behind.
- Why is having them coloured an issue? List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more first-class or List A appearances and List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace both used coloured rows, and are perfectly sortable. I really think for a list of this type you need to have sortability. Harrias talk 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Making it sortable will stuff up the whole table because the last two rows Total and Backlog. I tried, see it for yourself.
- Have a look at the coding in 1896 Summer Olympics medal table and List of Philadelphia Flyers players to work out how to get it to work. I'd suggest working on it in a sandbox to make sure that if you mess it up, it doesn't affect the article. If you need any help, point me in the direction of your sandbox and I'll see what I can do.Harrias talk 12:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- done
Per WP:ACCESS I believe we should be using image insertion templates in place of symbols now, so {{dagger}} should render: †
- I've already done that, per user The Rambling Man comment.
- done
Is 'unrefueled' really a word?
- Yes, it's used quite a lot in the industry.
- done
"Able to accommodate between 301 and 365 passengers in a 3-class layout, .." – What is a 3-class layout? And per MOS:NUM, it should probably be "three-class layout".
- Economy/Business/First classes, see Travel class
- done Referencing: please be consistent in use of dates: as the article is in US English, you should probably use Month DD, YYYY throughout, but at the moment a fair few of them use DD Month YYYY.
- done Ref 1 needs further information (for example author)
- None is provided.
- Really? Because on my browser it says: "Emirates talks to Boeing about 777 successor and hints at more big orders
By Max Kingsley-Jones" Harrias talk 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Ref
s 4 and8 need specific page references.
- I don't own a copy of the GWR. It might interest you that the text you're reading is FA-status, copied from Boeing 777, and slightly modified.
- Ref 20: is this a periodical? If so, it needs specific volume and issue information and publisher details.
- I'm not sure since I haven't got a copy. It's published annually, that's what I know
- What makes CH-Aviation a reliable source?
- Missed that Giants2008 had already made this point: though I don't think you answered the question sufficiently, the fact it is used in other articles doesn't make it reliable, it might just make those articles less reliable. Harrias talk 17:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the site updates its info regularly. Take Singapore Airlines, for example. CH-Aviation says it's got 109 planes, while SIA itself says it's got 110 [2] (I suspect the SIA figures are dated). Other websites, such as Airfleets.net, says SIA operates 121 planes, a big discrepancy. By the way, SIA and CH Aviation both say that the airline has 66 B777s in service.
- done Check the columns add up in the table: as far as I can tell, at least six of them do not.
- Can you tell me which one? I don't seem to find it.
Other than these pretty picky points, the list looks in pretty good shape to me. Harrias talk 17:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose at the moment, as I'm not convinced a suitable argument has been made to show that CH-Aviation is a reliable source, and the table lacks sortability, which in a table of this sort should be considered a necessity. Harrias talk 12:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, I think a comment regarding the suitability of ch-aviation (with evidence of reliability) is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.