Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:38, 1 May 2011.

Airbus A330

 * Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble  07:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this article has experienced rapid expansion from late-January to mid-March, during which I added large additions of text and improved the article in general; when I said "I", I meant other Wikipedians offered myself assistance, namely users Fnlayson, Bzuk, Brianboulton and WhisperToMe (please forgive if you're not mentioned). As such, I nominated the article for FA status, during which it thoroughly and contructively criticised; I'd also like to thanks to the good guys at GOCE (TransientVoyager and Grapple X), who greatly contributed their effort. In the end, the nomination failed. During the last two weeks, the article has remained stable. Today I'd decided to re-nominate the article at FAC. I hope many people will partake in this process, and, with my fingers crossed, Airbus A330 will be the next Featured Article. Thanks in advance! -- Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  07:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review
 * Watch for small formatting errors like doubled periods
 * Wouldn't really matter, would it?


 * Ref 5: page numbers?
 * Looking for book. Done


 * Ref 42: more specific location than USA?
 * Done


 * Ref 46: retrieval date?
 * Done


 * Ref 47: page number, publisher?
 * Link is there not to back anything up, since caption has nothing controversial.


 * Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized, etc
 * What is "Seattle PI"?
 * Linked. Seattle Post-Intelligencer.


 * Where is MBI? You've got at least two different locations for it
 * Done


 * Be consistent in how you name things. For example, will you call it Reuters India or in.reuters.com?
 * Done


 * Use a consistent date formatting
 * Still using both Airbus S.A.S. and Airbus
 * Airbus S.A.S. is used for references because that's the company's official name; the shortened "Airbus" is used in the article itself.


 * Ref 113, 124: press release from who?
 * Done


 * Ref 122: archive date? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done

Image review
 * Captions should meet same requirements for prose quality, sourcing, etc as article text. For example, "The Trent 700 was Rolls-Royce's first effort in supplying powerplants for Airbus." should be sourced; "The undercarriage fully retracted." needs editing for grammar, as it's not a complete sentence
 * Done


 * Some stacking of images
 * It depends on your monitor's resolution.


 * File:F-BUAJ-Airbus-A300B2-1981.jpg - France does not have freedom of panorama, and this image includes buildings
 * Done.


 * File:Egyptengine.jpg needs a more descriptive summary, including source information. Also, is that logo copyrighted? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Added source. The logo is not 100% clear.

Note: Ref #101 is a deadlink (404). -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 15:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User Fnlayson fixed it.


 * Support: This article meets the FA criteria: comprehensive, well-written, neutral, etc. This article appears comparable to Boeing 777, which earned FA about 1.5 years ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The first support for Airbus A330. I really appreciate it, user Fnlayson :) Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble  03:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I haven't read the entire article and unfortunately probably won't have time to finish, but a few quick comments:
 * The quotebox at the bottom of the "Background" section should be reformatted as a blockquote - it's awkwardly formatted and the font is too small to read, at least on my screen it's formatting in tiny font.
 * Done


 * A quick scan shows some prose problems. For example - "The A300B9 was joined" - it's not a person and can't be joined, and also passive, needs rephrasing
 * Done, anything else?


 * "The B9 would offer the same range and payload as the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, but would be 25 percent more fuel efficient,[8] and would therefore be a viable replacement for the DC-10 and Lockheed L-1011 TriStar.[9]" - three instances of "would" in this sentence
 * Done


 * "The specifications also revealed the large underfloor cargo volume that could hold five cargo pallets or 16 LD3 cargo containers in the forward, and four pallets or 14 LD3s in the aft hold;" - "also" probably not necessary because nothing has been revealed yet. And do specifications reveal or show?
 * Done

Haven't gotten any further, but I'd suggest finding an independent copyeditor. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Two copy-editors actually worked on the article few weeks back, and since there hasn't been any significant changes. Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble  02:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead is solid. After a brief review, which can now be found on the FAC talk page, I am satisfied with the article's lead. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.