Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 777/archive3


 * 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009.

Boeing 777

 * Nominator(s): SynergyStar (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved significantly over the past year, benefiting from Wiki's article review process, and in the process attaining GA and currently A-Class status. Suggestions from a recent Peer Review along with a 2008 FA nomination have also been implemented. Upon mutual agreement with fellow primary editors on the talk page, I am submitting this article for your evaluation. Thanks in advance for your consultation and advice. Sincerely, SynergyStar (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "The most common 777 variant used worldwide is the 777-200ER, an extended range version of the original 777-200, with 412 aircraft delivered as of July 31, 2009.[1] In total, 56 customers have placed orders for 1,116 aircraft, with 798 delivered as of July 31, 2009.[1]" Repetitions of the same date and reference are unnecessary. What about this? "As of July 31, 2009, the most common 777 variant used worldwide is the 777-200ER, an extended range version of the original 777-200; 412 aircraft have been delivered, and 56 customers have placed orders for a total of 1,116 aircraft, with 798 delivered.[1]"


 * Done. Rewritten to "The most common 777 variant used worldwide is the 777-200ER, an extended range version of the original 777-200, with 412 aircraft delivered. As of July 31, 2009, 56 customers have placed orders for 1,116 777s, with 798 delivered.[1]"


 * My dict. says "dub" means to name unofficially.


 * Done. Changed to "named".


 * There are lots of important links, so I'd be rationing those you can, like the repetition of the "wide-body" link within 15 seconds. Why is "computer" linked? Why not just the more specific "Everett" linked, with the state not linked (it's a "chain" link, isn't it?). Europe linked? Ummmm ....


 * Done. 2nd wide-body link moved; computer link removed by colleague Fnlayson. "Everett factory" only linked now; no states or continents linked.


 * Do the images all have to be tiny? The cockpit image is detail-rich, so why not force the pixel width to ... 250? A few others could be enlarged. Have you thought of joining a few of the pics of the aircraft lower down into one group? (Not sure of the term for this). Tony   (talk)  12:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sizes changed. You mean a gallery of the different 777 variants? For image size, it's possible using the "upright=1.4" code to make the cockpit photo larger, although individual users could adjust their preferences for large thumb sizes. Thanks for your comments and suggestions! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A thumbnail size was added to about 3 of the more detailed images. Maybe you mean a multiple image box with the images stacked or side by side.  I'm not sure that is needed, except maybe in the Design section. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Does these changes cover the concerns? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice - reviewer hasn't returned. I have asked requested the reviewer to return to this page here: and, but evidently he has been quite busy the past several weeks. SynergyStar (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/15/225443/picture-boeing-777f-flies-for-the-first-time.html
 * http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_France/Air_France_Boeing_777-200_new.php
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thx for your comments. Flight Global is a reliable source, it is the website of the world's oldest continuously-published aerospace weekly publication, Flight International. The SeatGuru reference is more unusual; the ref is simply to point out that the abbreviations 772 and 773 have been used. I've replaced that with a Japan Airlines official reference. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Vietnam airlines boeing777.jpg - The source link for this image is broken and the licensing is unclear. Who is the author of this photo? The original upload history does not seem to indicate that the original uploader was the author, which suggests that the copyright holder is someone else. To check this out, we need to look at the source. Awadewit (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So shouldn't that image be tagged then? That image is not needed in the article anyway.  Image was removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking oppose, since image was removed. Awadewit (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"To accommodate production of its new airliner, Boeing doubled the size of the Everett factory at the cost of nearly US$1.5 billion[23] to provide space for two new assembly lines.[24] New production methodologies were developed for the aircraft, including a turn machine which could rotate fuselage subassemblies 180 degrees, giving workers access to upper body sections.[29] Major assembly of the first prototype began on January 4, 1993.[38] By the start of production, the program had amassed 118 firm orders, with options for 95 more from 10 airlines.[39] Total investment in the program was estimated at over US$4 billion from Boeing, with an additional US$2 billion from suppliers.[40]" really any less clear (in context) than: "To accommodate production of its new airliner, Boeing doubled the size of the Everett factory at the cost of nearly US$1.5 billion[23] to provide space for two new 777 assembly lines.[24] New production methodologies were developed for the aircraft, including a turn machine which could rotate fuselage subassemblies 180 degrees, giving workers access to upper body sections.[29] Major assembly of the first 777 prototype began on January 4, 1993.[38] By the start of 777 production, the program had amassed 118 firm orders, with options for 95 more from 10 airlines.[39] Total investment in the 777 program was estimated at over US$4 billion from Boeing, with an additional US$2 billion from suppliers.[40]" - which has far fewer 777s than some passages? Nothing added to my version, just all 4 "777"s removed. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose on prose. Was there a competition to get "777" into every line at least twice? Seeing the article text from some way away it looks as if it has been hit by a repeating text vandal. Obviously a lot of "777"s & model variants are needed, but a great number can just be dropped, & others rephrased by the use of words like "model, aircraft, type, variant, version". Is:


 * Good point. Changes are in work. They should be done in a couple days. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. I had some time today--went through each article section and pruned "777"s. Changes include the revision of the above paragraph to the exact "777"-less version. Thanks for the suggestion. SynergyStar (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks . That's resolved. I won't support just yet, as I haven't read the article thoroughly, & don't know the area. I'll see what other points get raised. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Slightly weakly as it is a bit of a fact-clogged read, but I know that rather goes with the territory. A bit more strategic analysis would be nice. The lead should perhaps mention 2 or more the model's "firsts" - all designed by computer, & with the help of the 8 airlines. If it was me I'd put a pic next to the TOC to use all that space. But clearly covers the ground & I think meets the criteria. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support and comments. Per your suggestions, the lead section now has a photo next to the TOC; and mentions the "firsts" - computer design, fly-by-wire, 8 airlines.  If there are any particular strategic discussion points, those could be added. SynergyStar (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the article through and would support it for promotion. I did not observe any significant errors, though I stumbled on the word "fit" in: In designing the 777 as its first fly-by-wire commercial aircraft, Boeing decided to retain conventional control yokes rather than fit sidestick controllers as used in many fly-by-wire fighter aircraft and in some Airbus transports. Does this mean fit as in make space for or fit as in outfitting?
 * As a general interest reader without a background in aviation engineering, the second half of the article is quite difficult (aside from being extremely boring). I would be interested in expansion of the "Development" section, if possible from the available sources, at the expense of the some of the detail in the following sections (e.g. available engines for different models and their thrusts) if necessary. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fit was used there to mean use, install, or equip with side stick controllers. Boeing stayed with conventional yokes instead of switching.  I changed the wording to clarify that. A lot of the content from the Variants section has already was moved to the Development section over the last year or so.  There's little notable detail left to add to the Development section and it is getting somewhat long now as is.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support, comments, and edits. Yes, the different variants and their engine choices can be rather dry to the uninitiated reader, but it's in the interest of being comprehensive regarding their defining characteristics. We've worked to make the variants sections simpler and more readable, but further improvements are always possible. SynergyStar (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand now how you've set it up, I think it is effective. I didn't really mean I felt there was too much in the article of that sort of information, just that any future expansion should probably be in the direction of further fleshing out the first sections and addressing non-technical issues, e.g. what kind of revenues/profits has the plane produced for Boeing, that sort of thing. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion, I've added a paragraph to the Next-generation models section summarizing the status of the 777 program so far as revenues and profits thus far, from the sources I've been able to track down. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I think that is a useful addition. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there anything else preventing support? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I support. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I saw the appeal for reviewers, was a little bit reluctant as a fellow aviation editor to partake but I'm here now as I know how it feels to watch an article review stagnate. I'm going to use bullets if that is ok.
 * Lead - Has blue links to variants, I expected to go to another article but they are linking to article sections, seems abnormal practise to me, possibly too much detail on variants. Dimensions are precise, better to round them or leave them out completely using words like longer, shorter, bigger, better etc. No mention of the alternative Rolls-Royce Trent engine. No mention of the 'Incidents and accidents' section, a fair sized accident was caused by a Trent sub-system.
 * Article length - At 81 kb it would seem entirely reasonable to me to split off the variants section to Boeing 777 variants or List of Boeing 777 variants leaving a reasonable summary behind. The number rich specification table for the variants could go there as well to be replaced by the usual standard aircraft specification table for just one main variant.
 * Images - The glass cockpit image could be edited to remove the glaring backlight from the windows. The infobox image has a tree in it (bottom left), it could be edited out (is that the best inflight 777 image on Commons? Have not looked myself).

Have not looked at the text or any references yet, I think some basics need to be addressed first. I am happy to help if you agree that the changes are needed, I can edit the photographs if desired. My impression is that it is a big article, lots of input from enthusiastic editors that has turned it towards unencyclopedic for 'laymen readers' with too many raw numbers which may well be masking the underlying story. Don't stone me please!!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    23:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't think there was that many numbers mentioned in the Lead, but fair point. True, the other engines are not mentioned in the Lead, only the GE90.  There's little to say in summary of the 777's safety record except it's been very good with just 1 hull loss over 15 years of service. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments here, and also during the recent Peer Review; let me also address them in bullets.
 * Lead - blue links to variants removed; RR Trent mentioned. Fnlayson addressed the Trent sub-system.
 * Some detail from the variants section has since been removed, leaving pertinent summary information. Per WP:SIZE, it is the readable prose that is measured, not the 81 kb (including refs); currently the article stands at ~10,000 total prose words (50 kb); the specifications table is 455 words.
 * Regarding precise numbers vs. adjectives, several in the lead have been replaced. Further examples could be considered for replacement with generalized statements, if pointed out.
 * The image glare--feel free to edit the image as you see fit. Same with the lead photo.


 * Those should address the basics, thanks for the help! SynergyStar (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of cropping the tree branches yesterday but felt the little bit of tree gave some perspective on how close it was to the ground and was in the corner largely out of the way. It's been cropped now so nevermind... -Fnlayson (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You can revert to the version with the tree if you like!! I have edited the glass cockpit image as well. There are a number of good flight images on Commons with the aircraft flying right to left (towards the text), it might sound daft but there is a guideline I believe for images of people to be facing the text if possible, I try to do this with aircraft and even engines (propshaft towards the text) for the infobox image. Lead looks better, I still think that the good safety record should be mentioned in the lead as a summary of the article contents. On design perhaps there could be a little more content on how it all works, I am thinking of the third criteria at WP:DETAIL (for readers that want to know everything!), how many hydraulic systems does it have, what happens if both engines stop, does it have a ram air turbine? Just examples of what I am thinking of, don't feel that you need to go off and add these specific details. On article length it is your judgement call. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is OK as is. I'll try to add a safety statement.  Adding some details like you mentioned are in order.  I added a sentence on the hydraulic systems. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. RAT added; all photos save the lead (which was by consensus at the time), I had already selected to face article center; the lead pic is now aligned as well. A safety statement has been added as well. Edits to trim the variants section have removed about 4 kB, 13 references, and several hundred words regarding orders, engine details, etc. SynergyStar (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Numbers have been removed from multiple sections, including each of the Variants subsections. They have been replaced with more general mentions, or left to the specs table. SynergyStar (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I noticed that several news citations from news media were missing the authors of the articles. Similar articles cited from the same news media have authors listed elsewhere; specifically, Flight Global and/or Flight International, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. --Born2flie (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for highlighting this, some of them were transferred by an editor who switched the format to a plain text one; however some Flight Global / Flight International references do not state an author because the actual article is uncredited (probably staff writer): e.g., "World Airliner Census". Flight International. SynergyStar (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Though I'd add my 2 cents to the review. I like the article, it has indepth coverage and a very healthy set of references to support the statements made. The History coverage is very good, and I believe this is one of the best articles for aircraft on Wikipedia. It does niggle me slightly that the page now uses plain text when it once used templates, but I suppose it is a matter of debate that the cite templates are inherantly better. Though you are almost certainly already aware of it, Boeing 747 is an FA already, if you need some inspiration and looking for ways to improve this one, I can't suggest any better way than to take a look at either the 747 article, or my personal favourite Airbus A380; it may help, it may not. This article gets my vote already though! Good luck on the review. Kyteto (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support and comments. Indeed, many prefer the template and I implemented them on the article a year ago, but they have since been replaced. I did inquire about a faster way to convert them back, but it's a rather difficult process. At least the references are consistent per requirements. SynergyStar (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak support - There is still some work that can be done to better meet criterion 1(a). I think the article should easily be featured article quality with only a small amount of work in response to comments here during the review. --Born2flie (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In many places, it would be simpler to state the type designation ("777") rather than wordy phrases such as, "its new proposed wide body aircraft".
 * The second paragraph in Design effort states, "$US11 billion" when it should be "US$11 billion".
 * "Divided into 240 design teams of up to 40 members, working on individual components of the aircraft, almost 1,500 design issues were addressed." Who? This sentence is written so that the 1,500 design issues were divided into 240 design teams with 40 members each. It is also written in a passive voice. I would recommend that it reference the development team of the preceding sentence as a subject.
 * "On May 15, 1995, Boeing completed the first 777 delivery to United Airlines." Couldn't that just be said as, "On May 15, 1995, Boeing delivered the first 777 to United Airlines."? This may just be a writing style preference for me.
 * Re: -300ER first flight in Next-generation models: Is certification achieved or received? Also, passive voice used again when a more direct voice would be shorter and clearer.
 * "Fly-by-wire" is only linked in lead and doesn't show up again until the second subsection of the Development. Might want to link it again. I found myself wanting to click there, and I know what fly-by-wire means.


 * Done. Fnlayson and I have implemented your suggestions: US$11 billion changed; 1,500 design changed; May 15, 1995 changed; -300ER first flight changed; fly-by-wire relinked.


 * Regarding stating '777', the euphemisms were added because of FAC comments above stating that the '777' word appeared too often. I've added back '777' over the above wordy phrase, and in several other locations. Thanks for your support! SynergyStar (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Italics is improperly used in some references; companies and websites are not italicized. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See this sample edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see additional effort here on prose redundancy (some of my edits might not be optimal, but I do see issues), numbers next to each other that are hard to read, and undefined jargon ("uncommanded thrust reduction" lead me to see that thrust is never defined or linked, so I suspect there may be other issues). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed. Companies and websites not italicized in references. On prose: redundant "all", "total of", etc. removed; instances of two numbers replaced; and multiple wikilinks added (thrust linked, heat exchanger, among others; some wikilinks repeated if they are far apart). Thanks for the suggestions. SynergyStar (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, but with entreaty for continued work on jargon reduction, clarification, and prose improvement in the after glow of the bronze star. :)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is obviously packed with details as, I'm guessing, such an article should, but it also has much more jargon than such an article needs. The prose still has speed bumps, and some things are confusing. Here are examples from the lead:


 * It is commonly referred to as the "Triple Seven" and is the world's largest twinjet
 * (In an encyclopedia sentence, the more important part should come first): "The world's largest twinjet, it is commonly referred to as the "Triple Seven."


 * The aircraft has seating for over 300 passengers and has a range from 5,235 to 9,380 nautical miles (9,695 to 17,372 km).
 * The range part is not clear, you need to clarify, as in: "The aircraft has seating for over 300 passengers and has a range that varies between 5,235 to 9,380 nautical miles (9,695 to 17,372 km) depending upon the model."


 * Distinguishing features include the largest diameter turbofan engines ...
 * (Remember, these are not specs in a web page, where one can skimp on grammar): "Its distinguishing features include ...


 * it is Boeing's first fly-by-wire airliner ...
 * (The link for "fly-by-wire" is not very helpful; it gets around to explaining the term only in the fourth paragraph.) Perhaps, it should be briefly explained in a clause: "As Boeing's first fly-by-wire airliner, it has computer mediated controls; it is also the first entirely computer-designed commercial aircraft."


 * The 777 is produced in two fuselage lengths, signified by the -200 and -300 designations.
 * (Jargon: signified by the -200 and -300 designations) Are these lengths in feet? If so, why not say it?  "The 777 is produced in two fuselage lengths: 200 ft and 300 ft, and designated the -200 and -300 models."  If not, then you should really give the actual lengths (which I couldn't find in my cursory read).

You obviously know more about the topic than I do, so you will have to find the best approach to reducing the jargon, especially in the lead. A new reader doesn't want to be zapped with fancy-schmancy terms as a part of their welcome. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, getting better, but still concerned about jargon. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is ... varies between x to y ... correct English ??? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed to "from" x to y. Have incorporated the above, save fuselage lengths (in progress). Thanks for the support and suggestions.  Regarding jargon, identification of further examples that need attention would be appreciated. Thanks for the comments. SynergyStar (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The fuselage length has been added; I tried the individual lengths, but perhaps simply stating that one is # longer is simpler . In addition, jargon has been removed from several sections, and eliminated entirely or replaced with more general statements. SynergyStar (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.