Talk:Airbus A350/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lizzy150 (talk · contribs) 17:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi I'll be reviewing this article which you nominated. I've noticed that you weren't a major contributor to this article, however, if you're happy to make the necessary revisions (with other editors), then let's continue!

Lead section- Generally, I thought this was a bit short. Glancing over at the articles for A330 and A340, they've got 3 or 4 consistent paragraphs. Perhaps take a look at those and beef up the lead section with 3 good paragraphs. Write more about the variants and key features. The lead should summarise the whole article, so adding sources isn't necessary. Personally, I think writing about 'type certification' in the lead might be a bit early, but it can stay. When using abbreviations for the first time ('EASA', 'FAA', 'nmi' and 'km'), state their full names, then afterwards you can abbreviate. [European Aviation Safety Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, nautical miles and kilometres]
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 14:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Early designs / Redesign and launch
 * 'Early designs' subheader - shouldn't this be 'Background and early designs'? There's some information in this section which covers the background too.
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 18:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Second paragraph - how can airliners be dissatisfied with something that they don't know? I suggest removing this paragraph and write: 'On 16 September 2004, Airbus president and chief executive officer Noël Forgeard confirmed the consideration of a new project. Airbus decided to commit €4 billion to a new airliner design.'
 * ❌ It is more of showing the project plan to airliners and asking of their opinion, so they do know. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 18:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 'expecting a 2010 service entry to catch over 20 years half of a 3,100 aircraft market between 250 and 300 seats' - this sentence sounds informal and doesn't really make sense to me.
 * ✅ Reworded to 'aircraft ranged between 250 and 300 seats.' - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 04:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep this sentence, can you at least make it sound more formal, or at least explain to on why this should be kept? - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * source is "The market for aircraft in the 250-300 seat category is estimated at some 3,100 new aircraft over the next 20 years, of which Airbus expects to get at least 50 per cent."--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I know it is sourced, but I am asking for a better rewording of what is present in the article right now. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * clarified.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * What's 'A330 sistership' mean?
 * ✅ Changed to "based on the A330" - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 18:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * '245 seat' and '285 seats' - shouldn't this be '245-seater' and '285-seater'?
 * ❌ No, those serve as adjectives. The A350-800 and the A350-900 are the subjects of priority. Adding seater would just make it sound weird: '245-seater A350-800' and '285-seater A350-900' don't fit, and when you put it in a sentence: 'Based on the A330, the 245-seater A350-800 was to fly over a 8,600 nmi / 15,900 km range and the 285-seater A350-900 over a 7,500 nmi / 13,900 km range,' it sounds even weirder. I adjusted the wording to be '245-seat' and '285-seat' instead, as they sound like adjectives as they meant to be. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 18:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 'Fuel efficiency would improve by over 10%' - is that sourced?
 * ✅ shortened to just 'improve' - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 04:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * where does it say 10% in the source? - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 21:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "a double-digit improvement in fuel efficiency"--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Double-digit does not mean 10%. It is any number between 10 and 99 inclusive, as the word means what it says, composed of two numbers. Can we rephrase to 'Fuel efficiency would improve by double-digits'? - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * that's why the article states "over 10%" not 10%.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 'EADS CEO Thomas Enders' - why are we using 'EADS'? Shouldn't it be 'Airbus'? We should remove all references to EADS if so.
 * ❌ It was EADS back in 2006 when this statement was made, and EADS was renamed Airbus in 2014. It should be kept. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 18:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Design phase / production
 * 'Pratt & Whitney seemed to be at odds with GE on this' - this line sounds a bit informal to me, consider rephrasing
 * ✅ - Reworded to 'In response, Pratt & ...' - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 05:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 'Airbus former chief executive Louis Gallois' - earlier in the article, we use 'CEO' and now here we're using 'chief executive'. Could we be consistent? Also, add a wikilink to his Wikipedia article.
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 'planned to introduce new techniques and procedures' - what are they, do we know?
 * ✅ - More specific. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 05:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I will continue with this review below.. thanks. Just Lizzy(talk) 17:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Main Airbus A350 XWB contributors:, , - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 18:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, here is my additional feedback..

Production
 * 'Airbus plans to increase its production' - should we say 'Airbus announced plans to..' to bring this up to actual events? (We're no longer writing about what they're planning)
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 04:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 'Around 90 deliveries are expected in 2018, with about 15% -1000s (≈14).' - same with this - what were their actual deliveries?
 * ✅ Updated. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Testing and certification
 * 'Development costs were estimated..' - what development costs are we talking about?
 * ✅ Clarified - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 'A350 XWB, F-WWCF, msn. 2, underwent..' - what does that mean?
 * ✅ Linked msn. to manufacturer's serial number, but deleted registration name F-WWCF due to lack of support by source. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Introduction and early operations
 * 'One year after introduction, the A350 fleet had accumulated 3,000 cycles..' - I assume the source for this is at the end of the paragraph? (I can't see the source without subscription)
 * Yes. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 'In service problems had included three areas' - should that be: 'In service, problems occurred in three areas'?
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * All over the article, ensure you write 'percent' rather than the symbol '%', to be consistent.
 * MOS:PERCENT advise is to use the word "percent" in non-scientific/non-technical articles, and the symbol "%" in scientific/technical articles. I have the habit to consider aircraft articles as technical articles.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for clarifying. Then can we please use symbol "%" everywhere for consistency? We should stick to one format. Just Lizzy(talk) 20:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ All of them are replaced. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 'In 2016, 49 were delivered and the monthly rate should grow to 10 by the end of 2018.' - should probably update this to say if the monthly rate did grow to 10.
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you check if this edit is okay, because I could not find a monthly rate update by any source on 2018. I therefore assumed that because in 2018 Airbus produced around 93 aircraft, the goal was not reached since the monthly rate would be 9.3 and therefore the rate was not met. 2019 also did not meet the rate with 112 aircraft, and so the monthly rate would be 9.3, therefore being under the planned rate of 10. Sources were used for numbers, but math was done intuitively without any direct reference from a source. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Noticing you reverted this, can you update this quote instead? Thanks. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 20:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a ref.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better if we omit the statement that the monthly rate would grow to 10 in 2018 because there is no reference for an update. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 15:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * yours is fine, 112 / year is 10.2 per month over 11 months as Airbus computes it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 'with a 280 t' - should specify all weights as 'tonnes' to make it clearer
 * ❌ Tonnes was clarified in the lead. The pattern '#t (#lb)' reflects off the first clarification '# tonnes (# pounds)' so therefore, readers should expect to refer 't' as tonnes/metric tons rather than imperial tons. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 'finalized an order' - use British spelling of 'finalised'
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Design
 * 'In September 2007..' - source needed
 * ❌ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 04:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * First 2 paragraphs could be merged
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 05:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 'Overall, Airbus promises passengers more headroom..' - sounds a little promotional. Perhaps write 'it gives' rather than 'Airbus promises'
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 04:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 'The wings are produced in the new £400M' - should we give the Euro and US dollar equivalent too?
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 04:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 'Honeywell supplies its 1,700 hp' - shouldn't we specify 'horsepower' to make it clearer?
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 05:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to used a template for this because the full name 'horsepower' doesn't exist in . I state this because I noticed the previous discussion and I want to state the reason why I have to make this change. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 06:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed Template:cvt is similar to Template:convert, with one change: cvt has option abbr=on preset--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? I'll use the cvt again to see if it works. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 13:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried doing abbr=out in Template:cvt, doesn't work. It's still hp and kW. Interestingly enough, for Template:convert, it's horsepower and kW, and I'm surprised they haven't spelt out kilowatt when I asked for no abbreviations. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 13:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:convert: By default, the first quantity shows the unit name, the second shows the symbol (or abbreviation): 1 hp → 1 hp. Using |abbr=in is the reverse behaviour to the default, but there is no |abbr=out.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 'MSN24 was delivered with 176 lb (80 kg) lighter' - what's MSN24 and shouldn't we specify 'kg' first, then 'lb'?
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 06:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * '$2 billion in revenues' - again, should we give Euro and US dollar equivalent?
 * ❌ Wikipedia has limitations on what to convert and there is no convert template for converting to EUR and GBP. Manual conversions are not allowed, so I cannot do anything about it. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 06:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A350-900
 * 'offering a 20,000 km (10,800 nmi)' - we should specify 10,800 nmi first, then 20,000 km, to be consistent with rest of article
 * ✅ Instead, changed all instances to this format with "metric (imperial)." - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 'high gross weight version available from 2017' - I think there's an error there, doesn't make sense
 * - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 'The PAL version' - what does PAL mean?
 * ✅ Clarified - refers to abbreviation of Philippines Airlines - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 06:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 'presented a picture-changing A350-900' - this sounds a bit informal, please rephrase
 * ✅ Reworded to "updated" - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 'The average lease rates..' paragraph - might need to specify Euro equivalent for some of the figures. Also, the last sentence in that paragraph doesn't really make sense to me.
 * ❌ per reason above. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * are you able to convert the USD data into GBP and EUR? There are no conversion templates available for them. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A350-900ULR
 * 'Singapore Airlines, the launch customer, will use its seven -900ULR aircraft' paragraph - should probably update to actual events. eg. Singapore Airlines USED seven -900URL aircraft'
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * '101.4 t' -- should be 'tonnes'.
 * ❌ already clarified previously. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 'average of 5.8 t/h' - is that tonnes per hour? Make measurements clear to the reader.
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

ACJ350
 * '20,000 km (10,800 nmi)' - swap these around
 * ❌ remade format to "metric (imperial)." - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A350 Regional
 * [failed verification] tag in the second paragraph
 * ❌ deleted uncited info - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A350-1000
 * 'raising the Maximum Take-Off Weight' - you used MTOW earlier
 * - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I find that my comments will repeat, so to make things easier, please can we be consistent with figures everywhere:
 * 70m (250 ft) - Metres first, then feet
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 308 tonnes (679,000 lb) - Tonnes first, then pounds
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 1 kg (2.2 lb) - Kilograms first, then pounds
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 8,100 nmi (15,000 km) - Miles first, then kilometres
 * ✅ but all are flipped - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 74,000–94,000 lbf (330-420kN) - Pound-thrust, then kN
 * ✅ - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

General feedback:
 * Most, if not all, currencies should be given in US dollar/Euro equivalent
 * Describe technical terms if necessary. Think of the audience!
 * Some short paragraphs (one/two sentences) can be merged to form consistent paragraphs
 * I will do a quick check of all the sources next. Article is mostly fine, but these tweaks are needed to ensure consistency. Thanks Just Lizzy(talk) 16:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot respond to this review in a quick manner since I have started a new semester in college, so expect late answers and responses. Again,, , , can you help with the review of the article please? Thank you. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, take your time. I will chip in and help where possible. I've just reviewed the references:
 * References 14, 15, 18, 19, 32, 33, 34, 37, 55, 90 — don't work or go to the right place anymore (you can try adding the archive links too). Reference 142 is just a URL with no other information in the source. Thanks, that's all Just Lizzy(talk) 22:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you find new sources for these? If not, I'll be ridding them. Thanks. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tackled some of these mentioned cites. In some cases, I have removed the urls where I couldn't trace replacements; they're still logically valid as citations using only their titles, publishers, and dates - having it web accessible is nice, but not compulsory, for it to be a citable source. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything should be re-assessed now. Hope the article is ready for a pass. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 17:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Josephua, Marc Lacoste and Kyteto for your efforts (and Biscuit-in-Chief for your comment!). I've read the article again and I'm satisfied that the article now meets GA criteria. I've made some minor tweaks to the article myself, and removed some of the external links. The Aviation Week links require subscription (not useful to everyone) and appear to be general articles (perhaps use them as sourced to write the Wiki article?)
 * Per WP:ELPOINTS 3, I recommend deleting some of the external links.  —Biscuit-in-Chief :-)  (/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/) 18:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Prose - Article is mostly well written, understandable to a wide range of people and properly structured. It could do with a bit more copy editing, which I'll do later this week.
 * Sources - Sufficient in-line sources and references. There is a [better source needed] tag at the end of Introduction and early operations, however.
 * Broad - Addresses the main topic and stays focused.
 * Neutral - No issues here, reads okay.
 * Stable - Yes, no editing wars.
 * Illustrated - Yes, plenty of images throughout.

Overall, it reads fine to me and is much better than before. I think it still requires a tiny copy editing (I'll do it this week), but most of the concerns have been addressed now, so I'll promote this to GA status. Thanks again guys for your efforts! <b style="color:#FF4500">Just Lizzy</b>(<b style="color:#FF4500">talk</b>) 22:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well for reviewing the article! I thank for their contributions to the article, as they did a lot to the article that I can do. Marc's input, although I admit I struggled to adapt to, was still helpful and helped me understand more of how Wikiproject Aircraft. Thank you all for making this possible. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 22:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)