Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Boeing 787 Dreamliner/1

Boeing 787 Dreamliner

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Boeing_787_Dreamliner/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Consensus is for delisting DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 09:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The short review for this article which was done by AlanZhu314159265358979 (who has made just 28 mainspace edits) misses a number of errors, including some dead links, and as noted here by BlueMoonset, a number of prose errors. The article deserves a much more thorough review. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 08:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from BlueMoonset
It's clear that a great deal of work has gone into this article, and it deserved its B-class rating. The GA requirements are quite specific, however, and at the moment it does not meet some of these requirements, and therefore should not have been promoted.

I do not have time to do a thorough review, but there are clear issues with the first GA criterion, "Well-written". In particular, I've found a number of places where the "prose is clear and concise" and "spelling and grammar are correct" requirements are not met, and some significant departures from the manual of style with regard to the lead section.

1a. prose and grammar
Some examples of problematic sentences or phrases:
 * Manufacturing and suppliers subsection: "The 787 project became less lucrative than expected for some subcontractors. Finmeccanica had a total loss of €750 million on the project by 2013." This does not accurately reflect the source, which talks about Finmeccanica taking a writedown of that much, but does not specify when the writedown occurred, nor talk about any previous losses or whether profits had been booked earlier.
 * Pre-flight ground testing subsection: "As a result, some airlines reportedly delayed deliveries of 787s in order to take later planes that may be closer to the original estimates."
 * Flight text program subsection, end of sixth paragraph: "Following this incident, Boeing suspended flight testing on November 10, 2010, ground testing continued." Missing word(s) and/or punctuation problem.
 * Service entry and early operations subsection, paragraph 5: "Early operators discovered that if the APS5000 APU was shut down with the inlet door closed, heat continued to build up in the tail compartment and cause the rotor shaft to bow. It could take up to 2 hours for the shaft to straighten again. This was particularly acute on short haul flights as there was insufficient time to allow the unit to cool before a restart was needed." There is no explanation of what an "APU" is in the article, "cause" has grammatical problems, and "particularly acute" could have be referring to the heat, the shaft bowing, the shaft straightening out, or the time this last would take. The entire paragraph could be more clear.
 * Operational problems section: "After these incidents, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board subsequently opened a safety probe." Using both "After" and "subsequently" is redundant, and I think the "Later" starting the next sentence probably is as well. Also, a couple of paragraphs later, there's a tense issue with "Japan's transport ministry has also launched an investigation." This was in January 2013; "has also launched" is only correct if the investigation is still ongoing 27 months later. Is it?
 * Battery problems section, final sentence: "The NTSB has criticized FAA, Boeing and battery manufacturer for the faults, as well as the flight data recorder." They criticized the flight data recorder for the battery problems? This sentence is very unclear, and "Boeing and battery manufacturer" is also problematic.
 * There are also a number of places where the full date does not have a comma or other punctuation after the year; these should all be fixed, starting with "July 8, 2007" in the second paragraph of the intro.

1b. lead section
A number of non-trivial facts in the intro are nowhere to be found in the article, which is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. These include:


 * First paragraph: "most fuel-efficient"; "world's first major airliner to use composite materials as the primary material in the construction of its airframe"; "a four-panel windshield"; "a smoother nose contour"; and the entire "common type rating" sentence.
 * Second paragraph: the entire third and fourth sentences, from "At this time there were 677 aircraft on order" to the end of the paragraph.

All of these "Well-written" issues need to be addressed. If they aren't in a reasonable time period, probably the best thing to do would be to delist it; it can be renominated for GA once they have been—I'd recommend asking GOCE to check it, and maybe even request a peer review—and with any luck will get a thorough and competent review. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The "At this time" sentence follows a sentence with a date. This should be clear if read together.  The extensive use of composites is stated and cited in the "Design phase" sub section and implied in the Design section later. I'll try to clarify and cite these better. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fnlayson, I'm glad that someone's willing to take this on. Thanks. The point about "At this time" is that these are facts in the intro that are not in the rest of the article, a clear violation of WP:LEAD; Good Articles must adhere to the lead section guidelines. The problem is not what that time was—this is not a clarity issue, but a GA requirement issue. Thanks for the impending composites clarification; the key here is the "first...to use composite materials as the primary material" statement, which would need sourcing to back up the "first" part as well as the "primary" part, though I seem to recall that "primary" was covered already. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the Lead & cite issues. I was trying to address the well-written issues you mentioned above and in earlier sections of this review.  But I see your point now and will work on it... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Result
It's been well over a month, and every single one of the 1a. issues remain unaddressed. With such clear prose issues, there's only one possible conclusion to this reassessment, and indeed, if this had been a non-group one, I'd be closing it as such today:
 * Delist. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)