Wikipedia:Peer review/Airbus A330/archive1

Airbus A330
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has been promoted to GA status just a few hours ago. During the next few days, I'll be going over the article to locate any discrepancies and any other mistakes, as well as adding more info. Comments about the article are welcome, and with them, I hope this article could be listed for WP:FAC.

Thanks, Sp33dyphil  (T • C • I love Wikipedia!)  07:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-
 * General
 * ✅ Ref 141 is a dead link
 * ✅ Reference formatting: retrieval dates are necessary for all online non-print sources. Also, non-print sources should not be italisized.
 * The article is very informative, but frankly, I found the extent of techincal information and use of acronyms made it very hard to read. I am not a particularly technical guy, and maybe these facts, figures and jargon are what the techhies like to read. But Wikipedia has to cater for a broader audience, and I think the prose needs some rethinking, to make it more friendly for the non-specialist reader. My remarks are confined to the lead, Background and Design effort sections, but they can be taken as generally applicable throughout the article.
 * What don't you understand, because you are just the person I needed since (I assume) you are unfamiliar with the aviation industry. What other areas do I need to improve? Also, I'm not that technical a guy. I prefer easy-to-understand texts. But because aeronautics is a hard field to understand, I've managed to find out the definitions and applied them to this article.


 * Lead
 * ✅ The phrase "adopt a common flight deck of the A320" needs clarifying.
 * It's very self-explanatory, really - the A320, A330 and A340 have the same cockpit layouts.
 * So do the references to "-200F" and "-200".
 * Could you please clarify your request?


 * ✅ Overall, there are rather too many reference numbers of one kind or another in the second paragraph, and I'm not sure that this level of detail is required in the lead.
 * I moved one source.


 * Background
 * ✅ "From the moment of formation, Airbus had begun studies into derivatives of the Airbus A300B..." Can you put this more clearly. For example, what was the "Airbus A300B" (not previously mentioned)?
 * ✅ "As the single-aisle studies underwent development to challenge the Boeing 737 and Douglas DC-9 in the narrow-body airliner market, Airbus turned its focus back to the wide-body aircraft market." I can't make sense of this, but it appears to be saying that while Airbus was challenging Boeing and Douglas in the narrow-body market, it suddenly switched its focus to the wide body market. This wording implies that it abandon iits narrow-body venture? Ift did so, why? What factors prompted this decision. Also, the sentence begins in the passive voice, which is never a good idea.
 * What's a passive voice? The sentence means that, while the A320 undergoes development, Airbus simultaneously plans the A330/A340. I don't know how to rephrase the sentence.


 * ✅ The passive voice recurs in "The B9 was therefore considered the replacement for the DC-10, and Lockheed L-1011 Tristar." Considered by whom?
 * ✅ Same problem, later, with "which was deemed the replacement...", and "the decision were [sic] taken"
 * What is "bending relief"?
 * Design effort
 * ✅ Second sentence: too much information, needs breaking down and making more digestible.
 * ✅ "In 1985, Jean Pierson was appointed managing director of Airbus Industries". Since there are no other mentions of this person in the article, I wonder what the purpose of this sentence is.
 * Removed


 * "barrel sections"?
 * A plug. Each aircraft fuselage is made up of many cylindrical sections, called plugs, or barrel sections.


 * ✅ Pipe-link "modular" to modular design?
 * ✅ "The plan was later abandoned, which Airbus cited as being too expensive and difficult, given the risk involved, to develop." Grammatically unsound, and also confusing; what was the "risk"? Rephrase for clarity.
 * Removed the last phrase.


 * ✅ "...the first for an Airbus airliner". I think you mean "a first". The rest of this paragraph, I'm afraid, fried my brain.
 * ✅ Link Franz-Josef Strauss (and drop the "Dr." - he was pretty well-known without that.
 * What did Strauuss mean by "with potential launch customer airlines"? Are there some words missing?
 * Airlines that are willing to be the first to order the type, hence the "launch".


 * ✅ "The designations were originally reversed, however". What does this mean? Do you mean "originally" or should this be a different word, e.g. "subsequently"? And by "reversed" do you mean "cancelled", or do you mean exchanged? I'm guessing the former, but it needs to be clarified.
 * The A330 was originally called the Airbus A340 and vice versa for the A340. The airlines thought this was confusing, because a twin-engine airliner has a "4" in it, while a quadjet doesn't.


 * "The decision to redesignate them was because airlines could not overcome the fact that a two-engine jet airliner would have a "4" in its name, while a quad would not." Clumsy and verbose; I would combine this with the previous sentence to give, perhaps: "The designations were subsequently cancelled, because of the problem that a two-engine jet airliner would have a "4" in its name, while a quad would not."
 * The last sentence seems unconnected to the paragraph.
 * How? Do you mean "Then on 12 May, Airbus sent new sale proposals to five prospective airlines, which included Lufthansa and Swissair."

That's as far as I can go with detailed prose checking. I think you will find that the rest needs similar careful attention. Considerably more work will be necessary to bring this to FAC standard, but in view of the work that has already been done, this need not deter you. Please contact me via my talkpage if you have further queries, or if you want me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)