Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 767/archive1

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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [1].

---

Boeing 767

Boeing 767 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Boeing 767/archive1

Nominator(s): SynergyStar (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved significantly in the past two years, attaining GA (along with the related Boeing 757 article) and currently A-Class status. Suggestions from two Peer Reviews and the Guild of Copy-Editors have been implemented. This article was the first to undergo copy-editing at the guild's Potential Featured Articles page, during which the recommendation was made to proceed to FAC. I look forward to everyone's constructive input, and aim to advance this article to FA status. Thanks in advance for your consideration and advice. Sincerely, SynergyStar (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• FN 22 and similar: page number(s)?
• Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
• Don't italicize publishers
• FN 132: formatting. If this was retrieved, from what URL did it come?
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for newspapers, and if so how these are formatted
• Be consistent in whether or not you abbreviate states
• Use a consistent notation for editions
• Be consistent in how you punctuate initials
• Check formatting of multi-author works for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Formatted. Page numbers added to all PDFs; Spanish source ID'd; no italics on non-journals; FN 132 reformatted as non-URL thanks to User:Fnlayson; newspaper locations removed; states written out; the two edition refs have been aligned; author initials have been aligned; multi-author refs checked. Thanks for the source review! SynergyStar (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - Article is well-written, ready for FA. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 03:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support , one caveat I know nothing about the subject, but it read well, and I didn't pick up any serious infelicities. Could you clarify Civil Aviation Authority certification? The linked article goes to a list of national organisations. Does this mean each one separately has to certify, or is there a simpler procedure? I think it needs clarification because the linked article doesn't help. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and comments. I checked the citation, and it identifies the agency as the Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom). With help from User:Fnlayson, that link has been corrected and labeled. The sources state that approval came from these two agencies; generally speaking, most nations simply follow US/EU aviation regulatory bodies. In Europe, CAA certification has since switched to the European Aviation Safety Agency. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good, thanks. CAA is not mentioned in my 2-3 767 books. I was guessing it was an international body like Joint Aviation Authorities. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's not Milhist, but I copyedited this for WP:Aviation's A-class process. I've got a question about this on this FAC's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 05:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'll just throw out the thorny bit first so that you guys can get working on a response. As you may recall, the FAC for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II failed mainly because Sandy, John and I weren't happy with the prose, and there were concerns about the See also section ... and the See also section here has the same issue. FAC reviewers may prefer that you create a section at the end of the article that explains in prose how the Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A and Boeing 757, E-767, KC-46 and KC-767 are "related", and in what senses the Airbus A300, A310 and A330-200 are of "comparable role, configuration and era". There are several ways to look at this issue; pick whichever works for you:
  • There's an argument that the local (WP:Aviation) consensus is so strong in favor of the format of this See also section that it overrules the usual consensus at FAC ... but FAC reviewers are unlikely IMO to take that on faith ... you're going to have to argue the point.
  • Kudos for paying attention to the potential core content policy violation by referencing all the entries that needed it. (That argument goes: See also sections don't usually have references, because they don't need them ... you can generally figure out the reason for the link and find the supporting reference simply by clicking on the link. That's not necessarily the case with technical articles, where you might have to digest the whole article on the other side of the link in order to figure out exactly how it relates.)
  • The GAN criteria include WP:EMBED. Short version: lists make sense when there really isn't that much to say, otherwise prose is better. Here, there are all kinds of things to say: in what ways are the Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A and Boeing 757, E-767, KC-46 and KC-767 "related" in development? Did they precede, follow, share parts, share design work, or what? So, the Airbus A300, A310 and A330-200 are of "comparable role, configuration and era". Those are completely different criteria ... which is it? Not only is it not said here, but worse, I might have to read a large chunk of two very technical articles before I'll be able to figure it out for myself.
  • The prose standards at FAC generally require that you make an effort not to raise questions without answering them, which you're doing here.
  • One of the less popular standards at FAC is that See also sections should be shorter in FAs than for other articles, on the theory that if the article really is comprehensive, you can usually find places in the article to work the links into the prose in a natural way. This See also section probably doesn't meet this standard.
  • We FAC reviewers have sometimes expressed ourselves poorly and come across as unforgiving on technical articles of all sorts, including WP:Aviation articles. My sense is that our actual consensus is reasonably consistent and fair: articles which are a hard slog for the general reader have a higher readability burden to meet, just because of the nature of the material. So the usual bar for prose is raised ... not a lot, but a little ... meaning that, if you got the sense that reviewers were being tougher on prose and See also sections for WP:Aviation than for, say, popular culture, you're probably right. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; I have no problem with shortening or eliminating the "See also" section. I actually attempted to remove it several weeks ago, and raised similar points regarding it on the article talk page. A proposal has been made to truncate it to just the links that are not in the rest of the article. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• The connections and so forth for links in the See also are provided earlier in the article, mainly the Variants section. There is no valid reason to repeat this info in the See also section. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed. To address the stated concerns, plus editors' resistance to removing the section (citing the "editorial judgment" clause in WP:SEEALSO), the list has been trimmed, and headings retitled to more explicitly identify the criteria for inclusion ("Military derivatives" instead of "Related development"; "Direct competitors" instead of "Comparable role, configuration and era"). The new headings in this brief list correspond directly with the citations. SynergyStar (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm satisfied with the changes SynergyStar made to the See also section; those headings are specific enough, I think, to overcome the objections I mentioned. I'm going to take a break here and go work on some other articles while I wait for more reviews to come in. - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Great work, everyone. It looks like you've got this one covered, but I'll keep watching just in case. - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help thus far! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments This article is in very good shape, but needs a little bit more work to reach FA class. My comments and suggestions are:
  • Please define what a 'wide-body jetliner' is at the start of the 'Background' section
  • Why did Boeing and Aeritalia decide to cooperate on designing this aircraft?
  • "By mid-1978, the new jetliner had received the 767 designation" - is the exact date the aircraft gained this designation known? If not, why not?
  • "By the early 1990s, the wide-body twinjet had become its manufacturer's best-selling aircraft" - this is a bit ambiguous. One reading of the sentence is that the 767 was top selling aircraft in Boeing's history, which of course isn't correct.
  • Why doesn't the 'Development' section mention the abortive (and corrupt) KC-767 lease plan of the early 2000s given that it also notes the eventual sale of these aircraft to the USAF this year
  • The article presents a positive picture of the 767's design and production history. While I believe that this is correct (lots of stories about the 787 program note that it's badly damaged Boeing's previously excellent reputation for introducing new aircraft into service and building them in large numbers), has Boeing experienced any problems with building these aircraft? (eg, design flaws, strikes, etc).
  • "A single large economy class galley is installed near the aft doors, allowing for faster meal service and ground loading" - 'faster' than what?
  • You could probably add some material on the problems some airlines have experienced from keeping their 767s in service for longer than they intended due to delays to the 787 program - for instance, Qantas has suffered from significant 767 serviceability problems, and this has damaged the airline's reputation for reliability.
  • "In 2008, ANA sent one of its 767-300s to ST Aerospace Services in Paya Lebar, Singapore, to launch the 767 PTF (Passenger To Freighter) program" - what does this mean? Did ANA transfer the aircraft to ST Aerospace Services, or was it re-fitted at Singapore by this company for ANA's later use? And what does the (Passenger To Freighter) program involve?
  • "Versions of the 767 serve prominently in a number of military and government applications" - what's meant by 'serve predominantly'? 767 military sales were pretty limited until this year, and all of the type serve in low-publicity support roles.
  • Is the November 1, 2011 emergency landing at Warsaw really important enough to include? Was this the first time a 767 had made this kind of emergency landing?
  • What makes www.zap16.com a reliable source or worth including as an external link? Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Details have been added for wide-body jetliner, Aeritalia, the KC-767 lease scandal, rear galley, and ANA BCF. "Annual best-selling" has been added to the sales sentence, "prominently" removed from the military section, and zap16.com removed (my second time doing so). The Birtles book mentions a design flaw, engine pylon cracks; a paragraph has been added on that, plus refs on aging 767 issues due to the 787 delays. Not sure if the LOT 767 emergency is notable, it was added recently by new editors, but references on its possible unique nature have been added. Thanks for the comments, and thanks to Fnlayson for the help with the date of the 767 designation and other updates. SynergyStar (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support All my comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; it's encouraging to hear that the updates are satisfactory. Just to note; the article has returned to being fairly quiet, and this evaluation currently awaits an image licensing review, completion of the source spotchecks, and further contributors. Several past copy-editors and A-class reviewers have been on holiday. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments Support

I peer reviewed an earlier version of this article and was asked to comment on this FAC. While the article looks good, I have some mostly ninor concerns, as follows:

• Prose could be tightened - remove "in length" from ...and would be capable of operating routes up to 3,850 nautical miles (7,130 km) in length.[20] and remove "width of the" from The width of the 767's fuselage was set midway between the 707 and the 747 at 15.5 feet (4.7 m) wide.[5] (or just remove the "wide" at the end).
• I do not understand what this mean Building on techniques developed for the 747, the Everett factory received wing spar assembly machines to eliminate time-consuming manual work.[6] what are spar assembly machines??
• I would link all airlines on first use- for example The list of early operators grew to include Air Canada, ANA, American Airlines, and TWA.[31]
• In this caption I would identify whichh airplane in the photo is which The 767-300 and 767-300ER account for almost two-thirds of all 767s sold.
• Per the MOS, the explanation for the abbreviation ER should be after first use ("ER" for Extended Range), not all the way down in variants
• In Orders and deliveries this could be tightened Data through December 15, 2011. Updated on December 15, 2011.[156][1][80][157][158][159] (no need to give the same date twice)
• In the Incidents and accidents section, would it help to give the number of accidents and incidents involving fatalities (X fatal crashes, including Y fatal hijackings)
• File:B767FAMILYv1.0.png is pretty low resolution and hard to read - because of this the caption should identify which model is which. I also wonder if this is truly a free image file...?
  • I somehow missed the higher resolution version earlier - image seems OK.

Hope this helps, I will be glad to support once these minor concerns have been addressed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I adjusted the wording for about half of the comments above. Since extended-range is mentioned with the first mentions of ER, adding "'ER' for "Extended Range" seems redundant and unneeded. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Thanks Ruhrfisch for your comments, building on the FAC-focused peer review. Adding to Fnlayson's work, I have added spar machine details; linked airlines on 1st use; ID'd the caption; moved up written-out abbreviations, and added crash/hijack numbers. For the comparison diagram, I expanded the caption (that .png was created/added by a French wikipedian last month; he claims it to be self-drawn from numerical data and looking at pictures; I'm unsure whether it should be removed). Thanks again for the comments! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have switched to support. Nicely done - I mage review follows Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Image Review - all the images appear to be free and have the proper licenses. Some images which are retouched Flickr images are not as clear as they could be on their original source, but nothing too bad. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, image review, and comments! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see a spotcheck of the sources on this article. Ucucha (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Any advice on finding reviewers willing or able to do spotchecks? The article makes extensive use of free-access online references, including David Velupillai's 1981 Flight International article; relevant page scans/images/links can be provided for multiple book references as well. Thanks for any guidance. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

To update, requests have been posted for a source spotcheck at WT:FAC, WT:AIR, and WT:MILHIST. Hopefully somebody out there can help out and check some refs? SynergyStar (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reposted your request to the list at the bottom of WT:FAC, lest it get lost in the shuffle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Doing spotcheck ... Sasata (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sasata (once again ... we've got to stop meeting this way :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sasata, if you could be so kind as to ping my talk page when done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck results:

• I checked all of the citations from Vellupillai 1981 (the most commonly cited source) and was able to verify all of the cited statements; no issues with close paraphrasing.
• I also verified several statements from the "Incidents and accidents" section, no problems there either. Sasata (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Sasata: General note to nominators, Synergy, on future FACs, please link to this one and indicate you've been put through the wringer already :) I'll continue reviewing this after lunch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sasata for conducting the spotcheck, and thanks to SandyGeorgia for reposting the request at FAC! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes

• I can't decipher a single thing from this image. I can't see it in the article at all, and even when clicking on it, the text is illegible-- I'm unclear what purpose it is serving in the article (see WP:MOS#Images and WP:IMAGES. Also, it is sandwiched together with a chart in the "Specifications" section, which would make it busy even if we could read it.
• I'm happy to see progress in the "See also" issue (that we now have citations for the claims made in See also), but that is still not the way See also should be used in a Featured article. Anything worth writing about in a Featured article (in order for it to be considered comprehensive) should be worked into the text, not included in See also, and see also isn't the place for sorta kinda writing text, that isn't really expanded. Why can't that information be written into a section, to avoid breaching MOS on See alsos? I'm not going to hold up promotion over this (since it's a MOS issue and there isn't consensus to not promote), but neither should it be considered a precedent for future FACs. It's bad practice, calls into question whether the article meets 1b comprehensive, and is against MOS; it is still unclear why the Aviation Project insists on this.
• Why "Design effort" instead of just "Design"?
• The text about the shoebomber seems to veer off topic-- very little of that text has anything to do with the aircraft it happened to occur on (compared to, for example, the mechanical failure instance mentioned just below it).
• I didn't find any instances where jargon impeded my reading-- nice!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes made. The .PNG diagram has been removed (it was recently added, as discussed above with Ruhrfisch). The shoebomber text has been condensed to one sentence (the type of plane it took place on is rather incidental). The "Design effort" name avoids conflict with the subsequent "Design" section, but can be changed if suggested. Regarding "See also"—revisiting that discussion below in reply to Nimbus. Glad to see that the jargon removal efforts have had their intended effect! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments - File:B767FAMILYv1.0.png is very poor as Sandy says, it does not enlarge on clicking, also not categorised in the B767 Commons category. It's lucky that there are no more variants of this aircraft as there would be no room for it anyway (I have commented before on non-project standard specification sections in airliner articles, it has still not been resolved at project level), compare the amount of figures with de Havilland Comet#Specifications (Comet 4). I also note the abandonment of Template:Aircontent and the very unusual citing of entries in the 'See also' section. There is merit in the way the 'See also' section is consistently used in aircraft articles which I can explain on my talk page but basically it is related to 'comparison' articles being discouraged and deleted (quite rightly). The external image template should not be used as it is here (see Template:External media#where to use), they should just be linked normally in the EL section. All in the interest of article improvement and project consistency though some might think otherwise. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes made. .PNG dealt with per above, and the external media template has been replaced with external links. The specs table allows for data on multiple variants to be displayed side-by-side. However, if there is consensus to replace it with a simplified list, it can be done. Either way, the references are in place. Regarding "See also", the aircontent template was adjusted due to Dank's verifiability concerns (above). The "See also" debate appears to be larger than this one article, however, with multiple WP:AIRCRAFT members in favor of its retention, and FAC delegates and reviewers expressing concerns. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.