Wikipedia:Peer review/Boeing 767/archive2

Boeing 767
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been promoted to GA status since the last time I've put it up for peer review. I'm hoping that, with helpful and constructive criticism, Boeing 767 can be nominated for Featured Article status.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Sp33dyphil  (T • C • I love Wikipedia!)  06:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Looks comprehensive to a non-expert (me). The prose is clear though a bit heavy on the passive voice in places. The article is well-illustrated except for layout problems, easily fixable, as noted below. Here are a few comments and suggestions:


 * Watch out for combinations like Boeing 767 that would look awkward on computer screens if separated by line break. They need no-break codes to prepare the article for FAC. WP:NBSP has details.


 * The images generally look fine as images, but several are causing layout problems. None should displace heads, subheads, or edit buttons or overlap section boundaries. Relocating some may be possible, but to make more room for some of them, it will be necessary to merge some of the shorter subsections to make bigger subsections.


 * All of the directional images aim into the page except File:KC-767 Aeronautica Militare tanker refueler 2007.jpg. It would look better if moved to the left side of the page.

Lead


 * "The aircraft is regarded as an ETOPS pioneer, being the first to receive 180-minute approval by the FAA." - Abbreviations and acronymns such as ETOPS and FAA should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use.

Background
 * "reflecting increased industry confidence in the reliability and economics of new generation turbofan engines" - Link turbofan?

Further developments
 * "The company began offering the 767-300ER to tide customers affected by 787 launch delays, specifically to Japanese carriers All Nippon Airways and Japan Air Lines." - "Tide" doesn't seem quite right. Maybe "assist"?

Airframe
 * "optimized for a cruising speed of Mach 0.8" - Link Mach to Mach number?

767-300
 * "The 767-300 is a 21.1-ft (6.43 m) stretch of the 767-200, with an overall length of 180 ft 3 in (54.94 m)." - To this point in the article, the conversions follow the normal pattern of writing out the primary units and abbreviating the secondary units. The convert template can do that automatically; i.e., 21.1 ft. I'd change these two and any other outliers to match the normal format.

Military variants
 * I'd consider using italics rather than boldface for the airplane names. WP:MOSBOLD suggests limits on boldface.

Specifications
 * The hyphen in the 767-300F column is awfully small and might look better as an en dash or em dash.

References
 * Citation 53 is missing the retrieval date.
 * Citation 59 returns a 404 error and is missing a retrieval date.
 * Citations 66, 67, and 68 need retrieval dates.
 * Citation 86 is malformed.
 * Citation 89 lacks a retrieval date.
 * I did not check all of the citations, but I suspect there are others that need fixing.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)