Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Boeing 767/archive1

Dank
I understand why this isn't tagged for Milhist ... because variants such as the Boeing E-767 are the military version, this version is civilian ... but from the standpoint of Milhist's attempt to put together a creditable and credible encyclopedia of military history, omitting this article leaves a huge gap. 99% of the information that's relevant to the development of the Boeing E-767 is in this article, not that one. Thoughts? Would it make more sense to copy a lot of the information here over to that article, or to tag this article for Milhist, or at least to put this article into some category or task force at WP:Aviation or WP:Aircraft that will clue us that it has essential information about the development of a military aircraft? - Dank (push to talk) 05:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...or are so many aircraft articles of military relevance that it would make more sense to assume it than to tag them? I don't have any preference among these 4 alternatives ... I just want to make sure that writers of articles of military relevance know that they're welcome at Milhist's A-class review, and before I make the argument over at WT:MHC, it would be helpful to know which articles those are. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The military aircraft text (i.e. E-767, KC-767 and KC-46) in the 767 article are very small portion of the text in article. Less text than in your paragraphs above.  I don't see a real problem with adding the MilHist project banner to the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)