Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 777/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [1].

Boeing 777[edit]

Nominator: User:Chergles (talk)

This was nominated for FAC in mid-2007. The article has improved since then. In my opinion, all of the points raised in the 3 objections have been met. The subject of the article, The Boeing 777, is a very notable aircraft though even obscure articles have passed FAC before. This is truly a collaborative effort between several editors and represents great work and effort. Chergles (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see no indication that significant contributors were consulted, per WP:FAC instructions. If they don't think it's ready, the nom should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixing. The 2 most recent heavy contributors have been notified, me and Fnlayson. Will do the others. Chergles (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Top 4 editors and all editors over 65 edits notified. 3 ok'ed it, 1 has quit and said so on their talk pageChergles (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • It's usual to put magazine and newspaper titles in italics.
Many of the references use the template and the template did not italicize the titles. This is a wikipedia style error, not our error. I'll manually add italics. Chergles (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is from confusion with how the fields work in the {{cite news}} and other cite templates. Work is the field you use for the title of the magazine, publisher would be the company behind the magazine. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 6 (Cebeci..) needs a publisher and last access date at the least.
Fixed, unneeded sentence removed. Chergles (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is current ref 12 (Sabbagh. p. 180) in italics? Same for current ref 20 (Sabbagh p. 281-284)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Boening Company or Boenig? Pick one and be consistent in the footnotes.
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These sources list plane deliveries. They are like a directory. News sources will never say "plane 00112 is United Airlines, plane 00113 is British Airways, etc." Nobody has ever claimed that these websites are so error prone as to be unreliable. If SandyGeorgia says we cannot use these list websites, then I am willing to remove lots of good information and just have a barebones generic 777 article. Otherwise, let's use these sources. They are not blogs. Chergles (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that suggests these websites are not reliable. News articles are less reliable because they might say United Airlines has 53 planes but that number is not updated by the article so that we can't compare different articles. If SandyGeorgia determines that these websites have to go, then we'll just re-write the article and take out information. That will leave the article with a good basic description of the 777 but it may not have airline specific information, like number of planes a certain airline has. Chergles (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with zap16.com, but the rest are well-known airline field to be reputable sites. I'm not sure how much "proof" policy requires. Given that these sites are maintained by experts, I'd actually put their reliability much higher than mainstream media who have a bad reputation for getting aviation reporting wrong. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, most all of those have been removed or replaced. Working on the rest... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 26 (Boening 787 Program...) is lacking a publisher.
Added Chergles (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 27 (FAA publication...) is lacking a publisher. Also, the title should be the title given in the pdf and the footnote should note that it's a webarchive of the original.
Removed ref as there is a better reference. Chergles (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 28 (Type Acceptance report) is lacking publisher and last access date at the least. Should also note that it's a pdf
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 29, the publisher should be The Australian.
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 30 (From the Cockpit...) is lacking a publisher. Also worthy of note is that I did not investigate the site as I got a "Warning, Visiting this site may harm your computer..." message when I tried to click on it. What makes this a relaible source?
Removed reference. Chergles (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 33 (IATA & ICAO...) the publisher is run into the link title, when they should be separated.
Fixed Chergles (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 37 (Leading engine for the 777) is lacking a publisher. also, shouldn't the title be "Trent 800"?
Fixed Chergles (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 38 (ALPA 50th..) is lacking a publsher. Also, the author is known.
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 39 (JAL...) is just badly formatted. Journal title shoudl be in italics, article title in ""'s
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 48 (Delta Airlines...) is lacking a publisher
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current refs 63 & 64 (Factsheet...) are lacking publishers
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 65 (Aircraft & Aircraft...) is lacking a publisher and last access date. (The access date shouldn't be in the link title).
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a significant contributor to the article removed the FAC tag with the edit summary "Let's try to get the article in better shape before starting FAC". Since the article is already listed at FAC, and the 'significant contributors' issue is fuzzy here (nominator has 63 edits, but the editor who removed the tag is the top contributor at 365), I have reinstated {{fac}} on the article talk page and requested further input here. Maralia (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are fine. Both of us are not in dispute. I'm just fixing the article now. Chergles (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proof...16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Fnlayson says alright with the FA. Yipee, we have a common goal! Chergles (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • There is some sandwiching of text in the "Production" section, which we should try to avoid (see WP:MOS#Images). Can one of those images be deleted?
  • Image:020802 02.jpg - This image has no author. It looks like it is the uploader, but we need to confirm that. Please leave a note with the uploader.
  • Image:B777-200LR Paris Air Show 2005 display.jpg - The original source image for this has a problem. Note that the uploader and the author are not the same, so when the uploader released the rights, they were releasing rights that did not belong to them. We need the author/photographer to release the rights. Could you leave a message for the photographer? They can amend the image description page to make their release of the rights explicit, if they actually want to release them.

These issues should be relatively easy to clear up. Awadewit (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request in progress. One author is French and contributes to French Wikipedia. Have tried to write in French even though I don't speak French. Chergles (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry, but the article needs quite a bit of work. Struck oppose until I get a chance to do a more thorough review. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs to be significantly expanded.
The lead is 3 paragraphs. It is possible to add fluff but 3 paragraphs is deemed sufficient according to Wikipedia. Suggestions always welcomed. Chergles (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD suggests that an article of this size should contain a lead of four paragraphs, but even so, they should be decently-sized paragraphs. Remember, the lead is a summary of the entire article, and should provide a general understanding of the entire subject to a reader. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We'll try to comply with your suggestion. However, WP:LEAD actually says "three or four paragraphs". Chergles (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! 4 paragraphs in the lead. Content of the 4th paragraph was decided by several editors with drafts considered and improved. The 4th paragraph is truly a collaborative effort! Thanks to S.S. and F. Chergles (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needed tags, as well as other unsourced info. Some examples:

**All software, whether produced internally to Boeing or externally, was to be written in Ada. The bulk of the work was undertaken by Honeywell who developed an Airplane Information Management System (AIMS). This handles the flight and navigation displays, systems monitoring and data acquisition (e.g. flight data acquisition). **The first 777-200 built was used by Boeing's non-destructive testing (NDT) campaign in 1994–1995, and provided valuable data for the -200ER and -300 programs. This A market (see below) aircraft was sold to Cathay Pacific Airways and delivered in December 2000.

    • The 777 may eventually be replaced by a new product family, the Boeing Y3, which would draw upon technologies from the 787.
    • The first customer delivery was to United Airlines in May 1995.
All fixed Chergles (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a few one-sentence paragraphs.
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose needs an overall copyedit. Examples:
    • a 2,700 nautical miles (5,000 km) transcontinental and an 4,320 nmi (8,000 km) intercontinental. - "A 2,700 nautical miles" is grammatically incorrect. Also, why is "miles" spelled out, when "nmi" is abbreviated?
    • From a head-on view, the end of the section is very evident. - "Very" is unneeded.
    • 180 minutes of successful and reliable operation on one workable engine are required for the ETOPS 180-minute certification. - Avoid starting sentences with numerical characters.

–

Fixed these but going beyond that and making similar changes suggested by the above. Chergles (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the points raised have been fixed. However, a continuing effort to improve is and will always be worked on. Chergles (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) After a re-read, I'm of the opinion that the article is ready, so I support promotion to FA status.AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs for now. I see citation issues, a few organization and prose issues, and other areas where the text was confusing to me. I think the article is in decent shape, it just needs quite a bit more massage to get to the FAC criteria. Examples listed below.

  • I think that the acronym ETOPS needs to be spelled out. We shouldn't require users to click the link to get the background info necessary to understand some of the article. I see that the acronym is referred to throughout the article, so perhaps a brief note on why it is so important is also relevant.
  • I'm not sure why this would be a big deal: "the absence of a 40,000 lbf (178 kN) engine." - perhaps just a wee bit more explanation?
  • This sentence is very awkward "By the 1980s, the DC-10 and L-1011, which had entered service in the early 1970s, were coming due for replacement within the next decade." - it refers to 1980s, 1970s, and 1990s in a confusing manner
    • This sentence is also ambiguous. Does it mean that McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed were getting ready to have a new product line, or that the companies that had purchased those airplanes needed new airplanes?
  • "Airbus developed the A330/A340 models to fulfill that requirement and to compete with Boeing" - which requirement? - and how does this compete with Boeing, since they didn't have a plane of that size anymore?
  • "for first generation wide-bodies like the DC-10. " - this seems like an important concept that might ought to start off the background section. The DC-10 was one of the first generation wide-bodied plane, and Boeing was having trouble keeping up
  • not entirely sure what this means - " began issuing firm offers to airlines " - I thought they were just proposing a new aircraft; generally "issuing offers" involves purchasing something
  • " For the first time, eight major airlines" - need a bit more background here. How many usually had input? Was the combination unusual or just the number? Did other airlines want to be involved? How did they choose these 8?
  • Why is United not wikilinked when all the others in the list of eight major arilines are?
  • "This became known as the "Working Together" collaborative model employed for the 777 project" - This sentence is not grammatical and who called it that?
  • "By March 1990, a basic design for the 777 had been decided upon:" - decided upon by whom? Did the airlines reach some sort of consensus or was Boeing collecting all their information and making their own decision?
  • " United Airlines' replacement program for its aging DC-10s became a focus for Boeing's designs" - How so? Does this mean that United had more impact than the other 7 airlines?
  • almost all the early pictures are right-aligned. Can some of those be switched (provided they are not left-aligned directly below a level-three heading?)
  • I think there may be too many small details. For example, we are told that in Nov 1995 the first GE engine 777 was given to British Airways, and then immediately told the date that the plane first flew and on what route. Why do we care the specific date and route?
  • Why did they decide to have three different engine types?
  • I'm not sure what this means "dispatch reliability rates for the Boeing 777 had reached 99.96% "
  • There is no citation for "The flight was non-revenue with no passengers on board."
  • wrong grammar "whom could not agree on risk sharing for the project."
  • EASA needs to be explained when the acronym is first used
  • what is "fly-by-wire"? Can that be explained very briefly in the article, even if only in a footnote?
  • This seems very awkwardly worded: "The 777's lighter design is made possible in part through the use of composites, which comprise 12% by weight of the total aircraft"
  • I don't like the lb to tonne conversion. Should that be lb to kg or tons to tonnes?
  • There is repetetive information in the development and variants sections. For example, we don't need to be told in two places that the first customer delivery of the 777-200 model was to United in May 1995.
  • The info about British Airways being the first to launch a ten abreast economy configuration is misplaced where it is currently inserted.
  • I don't like the graph just hanging around in the Sales and deliveries section. That is distracting,a nd it is really too small to do any good. I would suggest getting rid of the graph and keeping only the table, or if you really like the graph, rotate the table so that the list of years is vertical rather than horizontal. Then the graph and table can fit side-by-side.
  • I think the Operators section could easily be merged with the Sales and deliveries section. Those make sense together.
  • Need a citation for "The typical operating range with 368 passengers in a three-class arrangement is 6,015 nautical miles (11,135 km). "
  • Need a citation for "the proposed future A350-900R model aims to have a range up to 9,500 nautical miles (17,600 km)."
  • There are some tonne measurements that are not converted
  • There are still some problems in the references with newspapers not being italicized
  • Please note that the MOS requires that page ranges be separated with an ndash, not a hyphen. (see WP:MOSDASH) To my eyes all the page ranges in the references look wrong
  • what makes cai consulting a reliable source?
  • Some of the information is cited to Boeing press releases. It would be much, much better to cite this (especially the setting new world record for distance one) to independent sources.
  • Same with info cited to the Goodrich Corporation/Rolls Royce. We shouldn't have to be searching out information from other companies' press releases and web sites; if it is not important enough for a third party to cover it maybe it shouldn't be in the article.
  • I am concerned that the information you've gathered on the sales figures is Original Research. It appears from the citations that you (or another author) had to do a custom search the Boeing website and compile all of these numbers yourself. These numbers are completely dependent on a search, and we can't even link to the search that was done to provide the exact numbers in the article; the search must be redone each time. I don't think that this is acceptable.
  • Make sure that all references to Seattle Post-Intelligencer are consistent; in at least one it is Seattle PI

Karanacs (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. Of the 35 listed, I have responded to the first 20. Here are the changes made (except for photo realign which can be done later):
  • ETOPS is spelled out now, and given a followup explanatory sentence at its first mention.
  • "The absence of a 40,000 lbf (178 kN) engine." -- not sure where this exact spec came from, so it's changed to "the absence of applicable engines." No usable engines were available for the proposed trijet.
  • Paragraph clarified: "By the 1980s, the DC-10 and L-1011 were approaching retirement, prompting manufacturers to develop replacement designs. McDonnell Douglas was working on the MD-11, a stretched and upgraded version of the DC-10, while Airbus was developing the A330 and A340."
  • First generation wide-body jets - sentence added to beginning of Background section.
  • "Firm offers" - changed for clarity to "On December 8, 1989, Boeing began issuing offers to airlines on its proposed new wide-body aircraft." For the record, the exact quote in the source says, "On December 8, 1989, the Boeing board authorized the Commercial Airplane Group to begin issuing firm offers to airlines on the 767-X."
  • Working Together. Add context: "This was a departure from industry practice, where manufacturers typically conducted the design process with little airline input."
  • United Airlines wikilinked.
  • Working Together - changed to "The eight airlines that contributed to the 777 design process became known within Boeing as the "Working Together" group."
  • 777 design decided upon - add "Boeing and the airlines" to answer (who?).
  • United DC-10 replacement focus, why? Simply that United was the launch customer. The paragraph has been reordered to show the launch customer as the first sentence, followed by United's requirements. The 'focus' bit is removed for clarity.
  • Photos can be realigned...
  • Removed BA first route flown, to where.
  • Engine choice, why 3? - add reference that this allowed airlines to choose among competing engine suppliers.
  • Dispatch reliability - add (takeoff without delay).
  • Rm uncited "non revenue flight" statement.
  • Who/whom changed.
  • European Aviation Safety Agency spelled out.
  • Fly-by-wire - added "(electrically, rather than mechanically operated)".
  • Composite sentence - change to "The 777's design incorporates the use of composite materials, which comprise nine percent of its original structural weight."
With regards to the Boeing order figures / search, that is an interesting point on finding the data, however in order to get the full numbers and orders I am aware of no other location to get that info except from the source...I am uncertain of how else to proceed in that regard. Thank you for your suggestions. SynergyStar (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To update -- Fnlayson and I have made further changes to the article, which address 11 of the remaining 15 items; additionally, the photos have now been realigned.
  • Repetitive info on the 772 to United delivery removed
  • British Airways' 10-abreast info removed, rather trivial.
  • Graph in sales and deliveries removed
  • Operators section merged with Sales and deliveries
  • Citation for operating range added
  • Proposed A350-900R range removed--its still speculative and changing
  • Newspapers italicized
  • Page ranges separated with ndash
  • CAI Consulting source removed
  • Reduced Boeing press releases, replaced with third party ones where available
  • Seattle Post-Intelligencer aligned in references
Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Orders and deliveries year by year table, the Cumulative deliveries and Backlog rows have been removed. The backlog numbers require subtracting cumulative deliveries from the cumulative orders. Current orders and deliveries totals are already presented in the article for each variant and for all variants. So that data in the table is not needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boeing_777/archive2&oldid=1090671051"