Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 767


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boeing 767
I am nominating this article for A-class review, in light of the article's improvements following successful GA assessment and two peer reviews. Thanks in advance for your comments. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All pics have alt text. (no action required)
 * All external links working. (no action required)
 * No dabs. (no action required)
 * Locations of some publishers missing. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 05:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these points! The publisher locations have been added. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you improve the captions under "Variants"? "American Airlines 767-200ER", "United Airlines 767-300ER" are a bit dull; I suggest adding how many aircraft the particular airline has ordered or is operating, or the location of the pics.
 * Retrieval dates missing from some websites.
 * I suggest asking Nikkimaria for her spot checks and source reviews. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 05:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Captions have been expanded (they were kept short there to avoid impinging on edit tags, but oh well). I had checked each web cite earlier, all had retrieval dates; one unformatted link had since been added, which is now removed as unnecessary. Regarding spot checks and source reviews, thanks for the suggestion; I am familiar with Nikkimaria's work and expect to see that scrutiny during a future FAC review. SynergyStar (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support comprehensive, good prose given the recent copy edit, and follows MOS. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 02:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I think the article is good to go for A-class now.  ANDROS1337  TALK 05:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Article looks in good shape, and very comprehensive. Comments;


 * "Both engines were capable of 48,000 lbf (210 kN) of thrust, a measure of jet engine output." As thrust is wikilinked, I don't think the additional explanation of what it means is necessary; it sounds awkward.


 * "The 767's fuselage was set midway between the 707 and the 747 at 15 feet 6 inches (4.72 m) wide." Consider rearranging this so that the reader knows earlier in the sentence that it's specifically the fuselage width that's being discussed.


 * "seven abreast seating could be fitted with parallel aisles for the entire length" - this is a bit confusing; do any airliners have multiple aisles that are not parallel? I assume what it means is that the fuselage width was enough for twin aisles and seven seats for the entire length.


 * "but only Ansett Australia ordered 767s configured as such, due to union demands" - this should be tweaked a bit; in its current wording it's possible to misinterpret it as meaning that union demands were the reason that the other airlines didn't order this configuration.


 * "In late 2002, Boeing halted development work on the Sonic Cruiser. Airlines had expressed reservations about its emphasis on speed over cost reduction, leading to its demise." These two sentences could perhaps be combined in order to get rid of the awkwardly redundant trailing clause.


 * "a smaller location at the Everett factory which occupied nearly half as much space" - better as "which occupied less than half as much space" or "which occupied just over half as much space", depending on which it is.


 * "taking over functions previously performed by the flight engineer" perhaps better as "allowing the pilot and co-pilot to take over functions previously performed by the flight engineer".


 * "Airborne Optical Adjunct" - should this mention who this aircraft was used by?

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The section Operators could do with some tweaks to avoid two consecutive sentences starting with "As of August 2011,".
 * I am through doing some rewording for these. I am leaving the "taking over functions" alone until I can check the references for that.  Also, I think the wording in basically right as-is. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Demiurge1000 for the copy-editing suggestions and comments! Thanks also to Fnlayson who largely addressed them over the weekend. Some details and clarifications:


 * With regards to thrust, the "it's wikilinked" defense is a good idea if it comes up in FA review (on Boeing 777, a reviewer's demand resulted in the definition being added).
 * We sweated over the recommendation at WP:Checklist: "If many readers won't even be able to guess what the sentence means without clicking, give at least a clue to the meaning in the text in addition to the link." FWIW, I'd be willing to listen to counterarguments, but readers should have at least a rough idea what "thrust" means, so I'd say the link is sufficient. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to parallel aisles, the 767 cabin is somewhat unique in that the rear economy cabin has parallel aisles until the end; other aircraft (A330, B747, B777 etc.) have narrowing aisles at the end of the rear cabin due to the curvature of the fuselage. (for comparison, Seatguru.com). I've clarified that a bit using the existing references.
 * With regards to the CRT displays and flight engineer, I reworded it slightly to "Cathode-ray tube (CRT) color displays and new electronics replaced the role of the flight engineer by enabling the pilot and co-pilot to monitor aircraft systems themselves." Naming the remaining two flight crew members provides more clarity; the reference states "....the screens could be used to check the status of aircraft systems, thereby playing the role of the flight engineer", which refers to both the flight crew and the electronics playing the monitoring role.
 * Thanks again for the suggestions! Any more comments on this article's application for A-class status are welcome. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I should've realised tapering aisles were a possibility. (I recommend business class to avoid such horrors :P) It's much clearer with the changes. There's another instance under "Flight systems" of the screens themselves being described as taking over the third crew member's functions, so maybe that could be tweaked a bit as well, but all of the issues I raised look fine now, so happy to Support. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has my Support. It is sufficiently well developed, wording has been checked over as appropriate, and I am satisfied this meants the standards I would hold an A-class article to. I do not see any problems withstanding. Kyteto (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Characteristic features of the aircraft include two turbofan engines, a supercritical wing, and a conventional tail.": If "characteristic" means what I think it means here, then better would be "The aircraft has ...".  Readers will usually assume that the features you list are the ones worth listing.
 * "Sized between narrow-body jetliners and the wide-body 747": Thinner than the wide-body 747 [That is, the readers don't need to be told that a "wide-body" jet is wider than a "narrow-body" jet; what they need to know is that this wide-body jet isn't as wide as other wide-body jets.]
 * "a capacity for 181 to 375 persons": "capacity for" means something else, per the usual style guides: "capacity for kindness", for instance. You want "capacity of", here.  (Some people say "can carry" is better, but I disagree, I think this is fine.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "placed the 767 into": placed the 767 in. (This is just another of those geeky rules that some style guides, and publishing houses, hold on to ... not something I view the writer as responsible for, that's the copyeditor's job, ideally.)
 * Otherwise, the lead looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions on the lead. The "characteristic features" are just "the aircraft features" now; the sizing issue moved (a "narrow wide-body" sounds oxymoronic; plus the body has the historical context--wide-bodies were larger initially); "in service" corrected. SynergyStar (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "between the narrow-body 707 and the wide-body 747, McDonnell Douglas DC-10, and Lockheed L-1011 TriStar.": I remember making a comment on this language before, maybe in another article, but I can't find it now.  Anyway: I don't understand what it means to be "between" 4 things.
 * "unenthusiastic towards the concept. Subsequently,": Heh, there are more problems than words here :) Long story short: "unenthusiastic, so ..."
 * "While airlines remained ambiguous in their requirements ...": The requirements are ambiguous, not the airlines.


 * On this first section, the sizing issue has been simplified: "The aircraft would provide twin-aisle seating, but in a smaller fuselage than the existing 747, McDonnell Douglas DC-10, and Lockheed L-1011 TriStar wide-bodies." Other areas ("unenthusiastic, ambiguous") corrected. SynergyStar (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "As such, it would typically transport ...": The "future-in-past" tense is for things that did (later) happen, not for things that didn't. Example: "The aircraft had [feature], which would later be replaced by [another feature].  The aircraft also had [yet another feature]."  If you use "would" in the sense of "intended to, were supposed to", some people are going to think that you're saying that the thing actually did later happen, in the future (relative to the story).  So: "As such, it was designed to transport ..." (unless I'm misunderstanding).
 * While I'm on the subject, here's the kicker: engineers often get in the habit of using the wrong verb tenses ... so it's not good enough to just follow their wording, you have to correct it as you go.
 * "three variants were planned—a 767-100 ...": Not a big deal, and there's a lot of disagreement on this, but both WP:MOS and the usual style guides take the view that em-dashes are usually more useful in pairs than alone. A colon would be perfect here.
 * "estimated at US$3.5–4 billion": the long string of symbols makes this harder to read than it should be. Since we've got a clear US context here, let's drop the "US": "estimated at $3.5 to $4 billion". - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Both proposals were positioned to capitalize on the airline industry upturn which emerged in the late 1970s.": I'm not sure what this means; were they timed to capitalize on that? If so, how did they manage to time it, that is, how did they predict the upturn?


 * Two suggestions here seem to be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen: "three variants were planned..." was followed by a colon originally, but changed during copy-editing just a few days ago; also the "typically transport..." sentence was from a reviewer needing clarification (similar to thrust). Both have now been adjusted.
 * American style guides are in agreement on this, but BritEng style guides are all over the place, so it's confusing for Brits. Generally, I aim to make everyone happy, but with colon and semicolon usage, that's not possible. - Dank (push to talk) 12:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "$3.5 to $4 billion" phrase is now included, it is easier to read; hopefully there will be little objection to the absence of the US$, which I've encountered in past reviews.
 * The "proposals capitalizing" sentence has been rephrased, after a reference check, to "Work on both proposals accelerated as a result of the airline industry upturn in the late 1970s." SynergyStar (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "20–30 percent": 20 to 30 percent
 * "at approximately one-third distance from the fuselage, similar to ...": at approximately one-third the length of the wing from the fuselage, similarly to
 * "The wings were designed ... Large relative to fuselage size, the wings ...": The larger wings were designed ... The wings
 * "and room for possible stretched variants": I don't follow.
 * "The baseline 767-200": I can think of several options for what "baseline" might mean here, but I'm not sure I'm right.
 * "towards": Right in BritEng, and not wrong in AmEng, but there's more support for "toward" in AmEng (for instance, at Chicago 5.220).
 * Demiurge was on the money objecting to "replacing the role of the flight engineer"; see WP:Checklist. That is ... what word or phrase does "replacing" modify?
 * "a U.S. Presidential task force": a presidential task force
 * Okay, I got down to Production and testing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On this second section, changes have been implemented for percent, larger wings, toward, and task force. The engine placement has been revised (the prior sentence mentioned "engines under the wings...at approximately one-third"; the new sentence lacks the underwing part, in contrast with the earlier "overwing engines" proposal, but readers can figure it out). "Baseline 767-200" has been switched to "initial 767-200". For "room for stretched variants", after reference check, clarified as "expansion room for future stretched variants." Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work! If it's okay, I'll make edits directly from this point on to save you some work; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me know if this is wrong: "The first delivery occurred on August 19, 1982, to United Airlines." Some readers won't know what a "launch customer" is. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wording is OK. But that's a poor reason to just remove something instead of explaining it somewhere.  Besides "launch customer" at least one place elsewhere in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do a gsearch on "launch customer"; how many contexts outside of aviation is it used in? And what was it I didn't explain? - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is very critical, but this IS an aviation article. Just looks like a 'when in doubt take it out' thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a guess based on a gsearch that "launch customer" means more or less "first customer"; if so, I think more readers will understand "first customer". - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Design. These are my edits. I haven't seen the "–300ER" notation before (outside aviation articles on Wikipedia), but I don't have a problem with it for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dank for your copy-edits! And thanks to all the above contributors for the comments and suggestions. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Would anyone would mind if I ask at the Milhist coordinators' talk page for a coordinator with experience in aviation articles to come close this? I understand that the usual people you turn to haven't responded. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds like an excellent idea; I've noticed quite a few of the A-class and FA-class articles on WP:AVIATION are also part of WPLMILHIST, and have been evaluated/handled by coordinators there. SynergyStar (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more complicated that I thought; please see the discussion at WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators. - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. At present, low participation seems to be the difficulty, as the associated discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft has had few replies (I recall similar problems with past FA reviews at the project needing input).  In reference to the discussion, it might be worth pointing out that the 767 has had multiple military derivatives, and its continued production is likely to be focused on tanker applications, which could qualify it for WP:MILIHIST involvement. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.