Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 777/archive1


 * 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 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Boeing 777
I am nominating this article because I fully believe it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. I have read this article, and am fully assured of it's quality, and, without reservation, am satisfied that the article Boeing 777 is featured content.N734LQ 08:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose refs are inconsistent and badly formatted. See Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) for an example of good ref formatting.Rlevse 11:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support : Article meets requirements.  It is comprehensive, well written, accurate and neutral. -Fnlayson 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose &mdash; it's a decent article, but I have a few issues:
 * The lead section is not capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article. Instead it contains an entire paragraph of unsourced speculation about the Y3 project and a discussion of CATIA, neither of which are discussed in the body of the article.
 * There are too many single-sentence paragraphs in the article body.
 * I'd like to see more coverage of the design and flight testing phases of the triple-7.
 * Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - agree on points of refs, grammar seems very techie in places, specs table is horrendously ugly to look at (mustard and grey!). a single full spec for one variant and a cut down table for comparsion between the various variants would be tidier. There are other obvious bits of tidying and tweaking to be done first.GraemeLeggett 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That'd mean 2 or more tables and more confusion. There's nothing basically wrong with the Spec table.  Similar ones are used for many other airliners.  I could do with some of the rows myself, but other editors want them. -Fnlayson 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.