Talk:Airbus A330/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk)  11:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

✅ Sp33dyphil
 * Comments:
 * Company names are not to be in italics (such as Airbus Industrie, Air Inter, etc.)
 * Linking "Europe", while not linking France, seems to be WP:OVERLINKING.
 * Perhaps consider mentioning the A300 and A310 in the lead (for a grand total of one sentence perhaps).
 * A mention was added there. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is talk of "the Germans". Can this be more specific? Was not Airbus at the time still a consortium, so would it not be better to mention that part by name? Also, if the Germans were on the wide-body side, who were on the narrow-body side?
 * The source does not mention who's in favour of the narrow-body aircraft.


 * Parts of the first paragraph of "background" is unreferenced.
 * Mostly introductory. Is it really controversial, since a lot of sources mention this aspect. Funnily, I don't seem to be able to find it.
 * Even if basic, without a reference it could easily be WP:OR. Arsenikk (talk)  23:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited sentence at end of 1st paragraph in the section. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * By $ you mean US$? This has to be specified in article which are not about US topics.
 * Link "ETOPS" and "LD3".
 * Stick in a comma after DC-10 in "i.e. double the capacity of the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar or DC-10 and was at the time 27 feet 9 inches longer than the A300."
 * Don't use italics on "TA9-100"
 * The sentence "The plan was later abandoned, which Airbus cited as being too expensive and difficult, given the risk involved, to develop." sounds awkward. Perhaps move "develop" further forward or something.
 * Similarly, in "From the start the A330, Airbus decided, would be..." consider moving "Airbus decided" to the front.
 * The rest of the article has metric first (which is natural given that it is a European topic), but during the engine development discussion, imperial units are used first. This should be swapped.
 * One engine version is named due to its thrust in Imperial units. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see what that has to do with the issue; the point is to keep the article consistent throughout. Readers need to think more (which is bad and slows reading) if they have to switch between reading the primary or parenthesized measurement. Arsenikk (talk)  23:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, I only made a comment as to why it was probably done that way. I did not defend it. I'll work on it... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Partially done by user Fnlayson.
 * OK, metric thrust units are listed first now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is customary to avoid prefixes, such as Mr, Ms, and Dr, in front of names.
 * Why is China and Yugoslavia linked, but not the others? (I understand why they are not linked, I am wondering why two are)
 * For China, it is linked because of the political situation. Yugoslavia is not a country
 * What do you mean by "influential Asian carrier"? Would not Asian carrier be just as accurate, and yet more objective? As it stands, it is a combination of confusing and POV.
 * Try to avoid terms like "Worse still". Just state the fact without making drama about how good or bad it is.
 * FAA should be spelled out fully.
 * Is there not an article on the 30 June 1994 crash? Please link to 1994 A330 test flight crash.
 * Already linked under the subheading.


 * Part of the first paragraph under "further development" is lacking references.
 * That's the introductory sentence. I've got the source here with me, but is it that controversial?
 * It's challengeable. There are lots of very detailed numbers, such as number of flight hours and first operator. That is stuff that beyond any doubt needs to be referenced. Arsenikk (talk)  23:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence "This was the suspected cause of an Air France A340 being destroyed in January 1994." sounds very cryptic. What do you mean by "being destroyed"? An accident?
 * What do you mean by "The 1,000 mile bench mark was passed..."? The 1000th order?
 * The accuracy of some of the measurements seems a bit odd. For instance "56 m (183 ft, 9 in)" should not be measured in inches, just feet.
 * The more precise, the better, I would think.


 * Comment - IMHO in this case it depends what the source says. It it says 56m, we should use 56 m, if it says 56.00m, we should use 56.00 m. Would you agree with that, Arsenikk? Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Avoid speaking of today, as in "even today, in 2011." For instance, say "not surpassed by any other airliner even as of 2011."
 * Try avoiding the term "claims", such as in "Airbus claims that..." The term has a tendency to induce that it somehow is not true, or at least not verifiable. If it can be verified in the sources, just state clearly "flight crew transition from the A330 to A340 takes as little as three days", and if not verifiable, leave it out.
 * I don't quite get how the vertical stabilizer can have two hight differences. The former number need to be converted.
 * The shorter the fuselage, the taller the vertical stabilizer needs to be to compensate for the reduced moment arm.
 * The tail height difference is from the -300 to -200. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking why the vertical stabilizer was lengthened, but why it says "...lengthened by 100 cm, for a total height increase of 104 centimetres..."? There is a "before" value of the -300, and an "after" value of the -200, so what is the difference in height, 100 or 104 cm?


 * Remove the comma after "by bringing into use,"
 * Is it really necessary to link km, m, in and ft? They are very common terms which it strikes me as highly unlikely that would have to be looked up.
 * Some units, such as US gallon, is not used that much (only in the US I think). Kilonewton and pound force seems pretty technical.
 * I said "km, m, in and ft" which are not technical nor uncommon. I have no problem with US gal and kN being linked. Arsenikk (talk)  23:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * APU should be spelled out fully "auxiliary power unit".
 * There are a few unreferenced claims in the -200 section.
 * To avoid double parenthesis, use  in convert to produce a slash
 * "Single Row" should not be capitalized, as it is not a proper noun
 * The sentence starting with "The same A330-200 leg is used..." reads awkward.
 * Don't need to keep re-linking to US$
 * Seating for the -500 is unreferenced.
 * Just use regular inline ref for the delivery table, no need for the bare url
 * The "subheader" (Notable accidents and incidents) seems unnecessary
 * "oxalyl chloride" shouldn't be in italics
 * Spell out LTTE
 * The Air Transat Flight 236 and 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion are unreferenced
 * "First officer" and "captain" is not capitalized. Titles are only capitalized if in front of the name (Captain James Smith) or they are unique (the President of France is sitting in his office ... the president is sitting in his office).
 * Cathay Pacific Flight 780 seems rather trivial, as it is only an emergency landing. I'm actually surprised the article hasn't been deleted (unless I've missed something crucial). Emergency landings happen all the time.
 * But this one has both engines fail. Many emergency landings occur with at least one engine still working.
 * Engines were unresponsive while in operation and flight landed at 230 knots. Engine 1 remained at 80% thrust until aircraft was stopped on the tarmac.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromewiley (talk • contribs) 16:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what, it even made the news here in Australia. To me, I don't think that's trivial, but quite notable.


 * In the second-last entry, which air force are we talking about? Why is it important to mention he is from "Riverview, Florida"? Just mentioning his nationality would probably be better.
 * Personally, I would have used abbreviations in the specifications table, but if you prefer the long version, that's also okay.
 * "Maximum takeoff weight" is not a proper noun, and should not be capitalized. I am fully aware that the article title is wrong, and it should be moved.
 * The list of engines is unreferenced.
 * The "see also" section contains a lot of links to articles already linked in the article. In general, it is a lot better to use prose to describe the competitive situation than to provide a link farm at the end.
 * I'm surprised you brought this up, since Boeing 747 and Boeing 777 also have similar links.
 * WP:SEEALSO clearly states "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links". Of course, there may be exceptions, but fourteen links is over the edge, particularly when about half of them are in navboxes and the rest are mentioned in the body. Arsenikk (talk)  23:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Hatfield" is a disambiguation link.
 * Some of the references are lacking accessdates
 * Under incidents, the number of planes destroyed in the Indonesia incident (July 2001) does not match with the Bandaranaike Airport attack Wikipedia article (this article mentions four aircraft destroyed, and the Main attack article documents three.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromewiley (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Overall I'm quite impressed with the article, and most of the above points are very minor. My main concern is the slight lack of referencing. Once the above has been seen to, I'll be more than happy to pass the article.
 * Please remember to sign comments (I see I forgot immediately above), but in the bullet list it is essential for any indent comment to keep track of who is saying what. Arsenikk (talk)  23:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I keep getting comments to come here, but it still seems that the work is incomplete. Seems like the prose is good enough, and I'll let it pass (it is after all only GA we're talking about). However, referencing is still lacking in places. For instance:
 * "The changes made to the -200 significantly improved the economics of the aircraft and made the model more popular than the four-engine variant."
 * Done
 * As far as I can see, all the information on the Airbus A330 MRTT lacks references.
 * Where? Looks like someone has added references to them already.
 * The is a [citation needed] in the lead; I'm not quite sure who stuck it there, but if the fact is simply referenced elsewhere in the text it is fine, otherwise please add a citation.
 * Claim removed by someone else.
 * Arsenikk (talk)  10:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those three are fine now, but there is still "Following the announcement by Strauss, in 12 May, the manufacturer sent sale proposals to five prospective airlines, which included Lufthansa and Swissair." which is unreferenced. Stick a reference there [or in worst case remove it] and I'll pass the article. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  14:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it too late for me to jump in here? I have some minor suggestions for the lead. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is very minor, like a typo, grammar or odd wording, just fix it. If it is more serious or controversial, take it up on the talk page. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  20:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations with a good article. It's been a few rounds, but the article is looking in excellent shape, and might be able to be brought through FA with some more fine-tuning. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  20:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)