Talk:Airbus A330neo/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 11:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * A long way away on 1a. Tense needs to be reviewed throughout. A lot of things in current or future tense which are now long in the past. Some things need to be reviewed due to passage of time, e.g. low fuel prices.  Things have changed. Repeated references to the effect of the A350-800 on this aircraft.  Make the point once. Undue focus on individuals.  I don't care what "Steve Mason, CIT vice president for aircraft analysis" thinks, just leave it at what CIT as an organisation thinks.  Same with "Ed Greenslet" -- notable? Richard Aboulafia?? Some descriptions not encyclopedic, e.g. "sales chief", "boss", "head of" - what are the actual titles? Lots of run-on sentences. WP:TECHNICAL: Lots of inaccesible language.  I am closer to this topic than the average reader and some things made little or no sense to me.  E.g. "station 40 centre fuselage and wings join", "supersonic shock wave interference drag, as is the first slat's dog-tooth. The wing twist and belly fairings are tweaked to approach the lowest drag elliptical span-wise pressure distribution changed by the larger sharklets, like the flap track fairings shape..." Too many links in some cases (of course needs to be balance with point above). 2nd para in Production section is a bit of a mess. Lots of terms not adequately explained, e.g. I know what FAA, EASA, FL, MTOW, ETOPS all mean.  Most readers won't. Other terms abbreviated at first occurence, and explained further down (e.g. Boeing NMA).  Dreamliner mentioned with no reference to the 787, again some readers won't know. Overlinking - same terms linked multiple times, e.g. Trent 7000.  Again, some are not linked on first occurence and linked further down.  e.g. MTOW.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I'm sure some tidyup needed for FA status, but very well referenced for a GA.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Gets bogged down in some unnecessary detail. e.g. why is there so much focus on Hawaiian's deliberations? The whole Market section needs a review.  Well referenced, but still speculative?  And lots of repetition from points made earlier in the article. Article goes into so much detail on contributing factors to fuel burn, and in so many different contexts and sections that by the end of the article I was bored by this detail. Another example is repeated references to how many flight test hours have been planned/logged at different points - needs to be considerably trimmed and tightened up. Introduction section - gets bogged down in unnecessary route-planning detail of an airline and cabin layout. There are 5 different charts covering different elements of orders, deliveries, and customers but there is massive duplication amongst these; some consideration/discussion would be useful to understand if fewer charts could convey the same information.  As it is, it feels a bit confusing.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * This one can be quite easily fixed - undoubtedly the article has been written from a NPOV perspective, I just feel that there is far too much presentation of Airbus' POV via quotations/sales forecasts/its market analysis. The manufacturer's hopes and aspirations aren't verifiable facts, they are hopes and aspirations and in fact to some extent part of the sales/marketing drive. What is Space-Flex and Smart-Lav? Need explanations or removal, the latter I suggest.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Some recent edit warring but seems to be isolated.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The article is about the A330neo, so not sure why we have images of A350 and A330ceo. There for context I assume, but if so let's explain in caption. Should: clearly identifiy the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious; be succinct; establish the picture's relevance to the article; provide context for the picture; draw the reader into the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lots of quick fixes above. But lots of work needed on prose.