Wikipedia:Peer review/Boeing 767/archive1

Boeing 767

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because I am curious what the differences between it and FA-status Boeing 777 are. It looks really neatly-presented, expertly-written, stable, and frankly, worthy of being a Featured article.

Thanks, Sp33dyphil ^(Talk) ^{(Contributions)}^{(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 05:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to FAC.

I think it is great that there is such a good model FA article to follow - a model article is useful as a source of ideas and for examples to follow.
YThe biggest issue I see with this article at FAC would be a lack of references in some places. For example, most of the Incidents and accidents section is lacking citations. There are also places where a whole paragraph is missing refs (see the KC-767 section). There are also places where there is a paragraph with a ref followed by one or more sentences with no refs. These generally need refs too - for example in the Further developments section By August 2008, Boeing had received two orders that year for the 767-300ER,[30] but Boeing has been offering versions of the 767 to tide customers affected by the 787 launch delays, specifically to Japanese carriers All Nippon Airways and Japan Air Lines, who are said to be in serious talks for new build passenger airframes. Boeing has also kept the line open in hopes of winning the US Air Force's KC-X tanker competition (KC-767 tanker program, which uses the 767 airframe). and Boeing sees the advanced 767-200F and 767-300F as complementing the 777F, and allowing Boeing to compete more effectively against the A330-200F, which is larger than the proposed 767-200F and 767-300F, but smaller than the 777F.
Y My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
YMany of the refs that are present are lacking complete information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
YThe EL checker finds several dead or problem links used as refs that will need to be fixed before FAC.
- Fixed. -fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Comprehensiveness is a FAC criterion. The 777 article has 32 kB of readable proze (using the page size tool), while this one has only 22 kB of readable prose. It may just be that this is more concise, but you may want to compare the two closely and see if anything is missing here.
Y WP:MOSIMAGES says not to sandwich text between right and left images, but this does just that in three places: the Further developments, Design, and 767-200 sections,
Y There are also more images in this smaller 767 article, compared to the larger 777 article, and it seems to me that some of them really are not needed (one way to avoid the sandwiches is to remove images altogether).
Y I also note that the 777 article does a better job with variety of images. Looking at the first 10 images in each article, half (5/10) in the 777 article are of details inside and out, while the other half are of whole jets. In this article, only 2 of the first 10 images are of anything beside whole jets. After a while all of the airplane in a blue sky images start to look somewhat alike, at least to my non-expert eye. If you are looking for criteria to keep images (or get rid of some) I would say ones that you can write an interesting caption for, or that are unique in the article, should be kept. So the first text snadwich features this great caption "A Continental 767-400ER on approach. The 767-400ER was the first Boeing jet resulting from two fuselage stretches." or this pretty dull caption "El Al 767-200ER". I know which one I would keep.
data-sort-value="No" style="background: #FFE3E3; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no2" | Since it is January 2011, it seems like some places should be updated if possible. In the lead is a more recent figure available There were 863 Boeing 767s in service with over 40 airlines as of July 2010.[8] or in KC-767 did the planned December 2010 deliveries happen or not?

The information is not updated on a monthly basis.
The data on how many aircraft are in service with each airlines is published by the major aviation media outlets Aviation Week and Flight International. They only publish their lists once a year. -fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YThere are a few short sections that seem like they break the flow of the article and could perhaps be combined with others or expanded. The E-767 section is only three short sentences, for example.
YLanguage is decent, but it would help to have someone copyedit it before trying this at FAC.
YPlease make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]