Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 747

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 18:49, 31 December 2007.

Boeing 747 edit

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article is already an A class article and has undergone substantial improvement since ranked A class. It has undergone review by 2 peer reviewers. The Boeing 747 is probably the most known commercial airliner among the general public and 2008 will mark the 40th anniversary of the first flight of the 747. The editors have carefully considered each sentence as well as look at the article in general. Archtransit (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This article so good it hangs out with the pope. --Keerllston 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC) PS: "Cite error 4"?[reply]
  • Oppose MOS breaches and more. Plenty of reasons why this can't pass FA (or GA before)
    • Please reorder the last three sections so that they follow the global guidelines. It doesn't matter what the Aircraft WikiProject guidelines say; they're supposed to follow the MOS anyway.
When there is a discrepancy between the WikiProject guidelines and GTL, the discussion may best be handled at the WikiProject level in order to either change the WikiProject guidelines or make changes to both. Consideration of changes to this article is in progress. Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? WP:LAYOUT specifically states that there is no prescribed order for these sections. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's only the letter. The spirit and the norm has them in the prescribed order. Even the automatic peer reviewer suggests reordering those sections. About the WikiProject stuff, when a WikiProject guideline and MOS conflict, MOS has priority. 哦，是吗？(review O) 00:51, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
  • On Standard appendices, the Layout guide says "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other." -Fnlayson (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to make a case for it being "just the letter" when the guideline that you're appealing to specifically and deliberately okays the rearrangement of these sections. Indeed, the only time that an order was ever actually prescribed in the MoS, it was added there as an undiscussed change (here) in October 2005, and was removed only about six weeks later (here) after discussion showed that there was no consensus (see here) to mandate and prescribe this. The current version of WP:LAYOUT phrases this advice in even less prescriptive language. You personally may not like WP:AIR's page content guidelines, they may be at odds with common practice elsewhere in Wikipedia, but there is no conflict with the MoS - please stop trying to frame it in those terms, and please stop reading things into the MoS that are not only not there, but are explicitly said not to be there. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow…it was that old…perhaps another style discussion where a wider portion of the community usually comment needs to take place? 哦，是吗？(review O) 05:23, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
Since it's clear that you feel that the MoS needs to be less flexible and more prescriptive than it currently is, it's up to you to see whether you can build enouigh consensus to change it. However, this is not the forum to do it in; whether you like the current MoS or not should not be a factor in this article's FA candidacy: it meets the requirements of the policies that presently exist. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bibliography section should be further reading.
 Done, fixed some wording Archtransit (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Facts and figures is trivia; get rid of it or merge it into other parts of the article.
This is discussed in the talk page and can be discussed further. Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In that discussion, both peer reviewers suggested this section be removed, and suggestions for how to do so were supplied. Strongly suggest that this is done. 4u1e (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, fixed. Thanks to Fnlayson. Archtransit (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article is HUGE!!! SS or condense, please. Upper limit, I suppose in this case, should be ~50 KiB.
Comment: part of the problem is the huge length of the references. If the references, infobox, and images are not counted, the article is not too far from the 50k suggestion. Archtransit (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I make it 48k of readable text, which is acceptable, although it is on the upper limit. 4u1e (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why doesn't the lead have more of the initial development info in there? I've also said during GAN to increase the size of the lead.
The talk page is an excellent place for this discussion as it is a complex topic. Consider how to summarize a long process into one or two sentences, if it is possible. In terms of length since that discussion (which predates my involvement in the article), the introductory section is now 1 paragraph longer and 23% longer. (21 lines vs. 17) Additional ideas welcomed. For now,  Done Archtransit (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the lead has improved, however by improving it there shouldn't be any stubby paragraphs. When I first commented, there were three mediocre paragraphs, but now there are four shorter paragraphs. Re including some development content, there could be a little briefing on the idea, how much effort had to go into getting the prototype flying (Everett plant, etc.), and a little bit about EIS. Just my $0.02 though 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
    • MOS:NUM: number and unit must have a non-breaking space between them.
Others who understand this suggestion, consider explaining in the talk page as I don't understand. Archtransit (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually MOS:NUM says that "a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended" (emphasis mine). "Is recommended"≠"must".
Archtransit, what the suggestion means is that whenever a number is followed by a unit (eg. 20.89 m) that in the wiki-code this is written as "20.89&nbsp;m". This is so that if "20.89" happens to appear at the end of a line in someone's browser, that the "m" doesn't get split off from it to appear at the start of the next line. With the non-breaking space in place, the whole "20.89 m" will stay together, at the start of the next line. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-breaking spaces are used with all units that I can find. Most have been covered for a while. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC) (so  Done Archtransit (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
  • This may be down to a difference of opinion over whether 'Aircraft', 'units' (which currently do not have the nbsp) and similar terms are units or not. I tend towards thinking they are, because they would also benefit from keeping the number and the unit together on one line. 4u1e (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy only suggests it for units of measure (sq ft, kg, etc). Going past that is a slippery slope I don't want to get on. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say, I'd tend the other way, but if that's what the MoS says, then my preference is hardly actionable! 4u1e (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Units" are stuff like nm, m, kg, etc. Other non-breaking stuff isn't necessary unless the layout is seriously screwed ;-) 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
  • 4u1e is correct; the wording at WP:NBSP is "In compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space, a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended to avoid the displacement of those elements at the end of a line." It doesn't talk about "units"; it's about numerical and non-numerical elements, to prevent linewrap. For example, Boeing and 747 are a numerical and non-numerical element; they are joined by a non-breaking hardspace to avoid linewrap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vague adjectives, like "some", are in the article and are making sentences redundant.
Fixed, several "some" words reworded and removed. Archtransit (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Seems  Done Archtransit (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please sift through the images—there are some that can be (re)moved from the current sections they are in, since they add no context to that specific section.
 Done Discussion is in progress for additional removal of images. Archtransit (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deliveries is unsourced.
 Done, fixed. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please make sure all references have a consistent format when they appear in the references section; I recommend the citation templates.
In progress, much progress has been made. Templates were not used after a very extensive and prolonged discussion with several editors resulting in a unanimous decision in selecting the style of references. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and a lot of work. Thanks to RJH's very specific suggestions (not shown here). Archtransit (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, technical terms have been wikilinked (high-bypass turbofan, etc.). This is usually acceptable for articles. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Boeing 747, sometimes nicknamed the "Jumbo Jet",[4][5] is a long-haul manufactured by Boeing in the United States.—long-haul what?
 Done, in fixing the next suggestion, this one was resolved. Archtransit (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first three sentences of the lead can be combined so that it flows/reads smoothly.
 Done, fixed. Archtransit (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ''The 747-400 passenger version, accommodates 416 passengers in a typical three-class layout, or 524 passengers a typical two-class layout.—bye-bye, first comma.
 Done, fixed, Archtransit (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 1965, after Boeing lost the Heavy Logistics System (CX-HLS) competition for the development of the large C-5 military transport, the Boeing design was considered as a basis for a commercial airliner.—huge fragment; second comma should be a semicolon.
 Done, fixed grammar but differently to avoid 50+ word sentence. Archtransit (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over the following months preparations were made for the first flight, which took place successfully on 9 February 1969, with test pilots Jack Waddell and Brien Wygle at the controls,[39][40] and Jess Wallick at the flight engineer's station.—bye-bye, second comma.
 Done, fixed Archtransit (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS:NUM again: link the first occurrence of a currency, like US$747.40.
 Done, fixed Archtransit (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The infobox picture has no source. Was it the user's own work, taken off of another website, or whatever? If this does not get resolved soon there will be copyright trouble.
 Done Fixed. Archtransit (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence in Background is not good: "However, concern over evacuation routes and limited cargo-carrying capability caused this idea to be scrapped in early 1966 in favor of wider single deck, becoming the first wide-body airliner" Subject of sentence - concern - did not become the first wide-body airliner! How about: "However, concern over evacuation routes and limited cargo-carrying capability caused this idea to be scrapped in early 1966 in favor of a wider single deck; the first wide-body airliner was born." Or is that too theatrical?--JCG33 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, fixed. Thank you for excellent suggestion. Archtransit (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And more and more problems. Please arrange for this article to have a proper copyedit for grammar, punctuation, and MOS. 哦，是吗？(review O) 02:41, 16 December 2007 (GMT)
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I will work on some of your suggestions more in the coming days. Archtransit (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very good! --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeNeutral Basically a good article, but there's a lot of cleaning up still to do. I think I'm right in saying that most of my informal peer review comments have not been considered. I don't expect you to take all of them up - who says I'm infallible! - but since you specifically asked me to review the article, I do expect you think about all of them. Not all of them are needed for FA, I will mark the ones I consider necessary on the talk page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An oversight! Will be following some of the suggestions in the next few days. Majority of your suggestions already followed, some others to follow. Archtransit (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry! A lot better after recent edits. The following points still concern me:
  • No explanation of why it was desirable in the first place to design such a large aircraft. There are strong economic factors which are presumably the reason for overcoming the considerable technical and financial hurdles to doing so. It's partly addressed later on in 'Entry into service', but I think mention is appropriate earlier to explain how the project came into being.
 Done reworded and reference added to support the new wording. Archtransit (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A similar point, there is no explanation of how the introduction of the 747 created 'a new standard of air travel'.
 Done reworded and reference added to support the new wording.Archtransit (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not clear on times in Entry into Service/Further development sections. Try and make sure that each para has a date somewhere near the beginning to establish context.
 Done Archtransit (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I suggested it, but the 'in popular culture' section needs to either go, or be expanded a lot. I think it would be possible to make this section (for once!) encyclopedic for this subject.4u1e (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Section is eliminated and integrated into article. Archtransit (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose - my specific points have been addressed. Neutral only because I haven't had time to review the considerable amount of work done since I last read the article. I plead Christmas as my excuse! 4u1e (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SEASON: summer 1969 哦，是吗？(review O) 04:04, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
  • Oppose for now, primarily because the references section is not up to standards. As an example, note #135 consists solely of the linked word "Development". It should look something like this: Lawrence, Philip K. (2005). Deep Stall: The Turbulent Story of Boeing. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0754646262. Retrieved 2007-12-17. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) The reference section is replete with similar examples of insufficiently formatted citations. They should be showing, where possible, publication dates or years, publishers, access dates, authors, &c. Note #3, for example, should show it was published June 26, 2007 and written by Aaron Karp—RJH(talk) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My concerns with the citations have been alleviated, so I'm lifting my opposition. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article lacks citations. Many sentences have no citations attached to them. While I see that the citations list is already huge, this is an indication that the article could be better written in a summary style with majority of the info present in sub-articles and only minimal highly relevant well-cited info in the main article. There is nothing stopping a user from adding a citation needed tag on any one of the currently existing uncited sentences, an FA should cover all the bases.-- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no requirement to cite every sentence. WP:CITE says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source." One citation can cover a whole paragraph, if a single source contains all the information likely to be challenged. The article would probably be better cited if fewer citations were used, pointing to more comprehensive sources. There are currently rather a lot of citations because each of the references used contains only a small amount of information. Add citation need tags only where you see uncited information that may be challenged. 4u1e (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- References cover sentences and whole paragraphs in some cases. To say it lacks references now is a real stretch. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some have said the article has too many references, not too few. It appears that the level of documentation is much better than most articles. I would fix the article to address the complaint if there was something to fix (how to address "too few citations" when others say "too many"?). There are roughtly 180 citations, more than almost every article in WP. (United States has 215 citations, India has 130.) Should this issue be labelled as  Done? Archtransit (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno; we should be worrying about the quality of the sources, not the quantity of citations/references. 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
Exactly - are there sufficient good quality, reliable sources cited to cover all points that are or are likely to be challenged? The answer to that is surely yes. (As an aside, I feel that fewer, higher quality sources would be an improvement, but I wouldn't withhold FA over that)If Amar feels that there is uncited material, could s/he point out where the problems are? 4u1e (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Prose is well below the "compelling/brilliant" standard one would expect. The article needs an experienced copy-editor to go over it with a fine toothed comb. I am not a good fixer, but I can spot problems with the language, which in places is hard to parse and difficult to extract meaning from in places. SOME examples (and fixing these will not solve every problem, so don't look at this as a complete list. Enlist help at WP:LOCE...)
    • "Ultimately, the Boeing proposals that were selected for the high winged CX-HLS and the low winged 747 were completely different designs although influence from the earlier military design in designing the 747 have been alleged" Sentance is a run-on sentance. There are several nested clauses here, and it makes it hard to parse. Consider how many clauses there are... X that were selected for Y and Z were different although influence from A in designing B has been alleged... Its just too much to follow. Much of the article suffers from this problem.
    • "The original design was a full-length double-deck fuselage seating eight across (3–2–3) on the lower deck and seven across (2–3–2) on the upper deck." The meaning of these numbers is unclear. What do they mean?
    • "At the time, it was widely thought that the 747 would eventually be superseded by supersonic transport (SST) aircraft,[30] so Boeing designed it such that it could easily be adapted to carry freight, so that it could remain in production if and when sales of the passenger version dried up. The cockpit was therefore placed on a shortened upper deck so that a nose cone loading door could be included, thus creating the 747's distinctive "bulge".[14] However, supersonic transports, such as the Concorde, Tupolev Tu-144 and the canceled Boeing 2707, were not widely adopted.[31] SSTs were less fuel-efficient at a time when fuel prices were soaring, very noisy during takeoff and landing, and their ability to operate at supersonic speeds over land was limited by regulations concerning their sonic booms" This paragraph seems out-of-order. The thesis seems to be that the 747 had success where the SSTs did not. Well, we have the second part, the failure of the SSTs and the reasons for it, but the other half of it, the idea that the 747 ended up more successful, is left without explanation.
    • Organization is poor. We have the "Design" section separated from the "Background and design phase" section; these seem a natural pair, and they are quite far apart.
Again, the above list of problems is not complete, its just an idea on where to start fixing the article. Its a decent article, but I don't think it meets the exacting standards of a featured article just yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed the above examples raised, several other editors have made similar fixes, outside copy editor contacted for advice. Archtransit (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-part of that was already fixed last night. The Design section covers detailed design aspects and features for the aircraft and all its variants. The main section labels follows WP:Aircraft/PC layout guidelines. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that copyediting for clarity has been performed, and I must say that it is starting to read better. Some more comments though:
    • The 747 is available in passenger, freighter and other versions. The 747's hump created by the upper deck allows for a front cargo door on freighter versions.—A little bit choppy.
    • The aircraft flew for the first time on 9 September 2006.[146] The aircraft is not certified to carry passengers other than essential crew.—Same thing.
    • Why am I reading the deliveries table right to left, bottom to top? It's confusing for readers who are not familiar with this kind of layout. Also, English is not Arabic. 哦，是吗？(review O) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
      • It lists deliveries from now back to the start. I don't see that as being confusing with the years labeled. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Copyedit completed by usual editors and subsequently copyedited by an established member of the League of Copy Editors (LOCE). The table with number of 747's made is geared more towards what the recent orders are, hence the order. The LOCE review did not recommend reversing the order. If there are further requests to reverse the order other than the one editor, this can be done. The order of the deliveries table is not a disqualification for FA. Furthermore, all FA articles can be tweaked over time to reflect editorial consensus, including reversing the order of the table! Archtransit (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that the table disqualifies this article for FA. I'm just suggesting that it may be a little confusing. 哦，是吗？(review O) 18:57, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
  • Abstain - I don't play the FA game, but I'll just mention to anyone who cares that the specifications section doesn't follow WikiProject:Aircraft's layout for this section (the article uses a table, the guide asks for plain text - these days usually supplied in a parameterised template), and that it provides specifications for a range of different subtypes rather than a single, representative model. FWIW --Rlandmann (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, when an aircraft has multiple variants that may be widely different from each other, a table provides much better organisation. 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
      • Agreed, if one were to attempt to show all these variants. But that's not how aircraft data is presented in Wikipedia: a single, representative model is selected and shown. I'm sure I've seen some aircraft articles with a subpage on variants that presents this kind of comparative data, but I can't immediately think of an example. The table would be appropriate and and useful in such a subpage. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Numerious commerical aircraft article use a table like this. Almost makes it standard practice. Adding some guidelines for spec tables has been discussed a time or two on WT:AIR before with no conclusion. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really a standard practice when it's done in such a tiny fraction of our coverage (how many articles out of roughly 3,000-4,000? Maybe 20 at the outside?) Anyway, I know that there's no chance of getting this article and its ilk to conform. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is more than 20 articles (airliners by Boeing, Airbus, MDD, Gulfstream, Bombadier), but your point still stands. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough; but it can't be many more than 20: in any case something about 1% of our aircraft coverage. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the approach, but I do think that we should be consistent. After all, there's nothing peculiar about airliners that requires a different approach from any other class of aircraft; let alone peculiar to "modern airliners from major manufacturers", which is about the only way I can characterise the spread of this practice. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I said your point was right. WT:AIR or elsewhere would be a better place to cover this. I will say there would probably be disccussions/arguements over which variant to list with the template format. But not with the table format. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've brought up airliner specs standardization at WP:AIR before, but it didn't go very far. For the most part, a semi-standard table has been used in several airliner pages, most done or updated by Jeff. I do understand RL's point on what the WP:AIR guidelines prescribe, but in usage, tables are very common in airliner articles, esp the ever-growing RJs, and I think they have a place, if done right. I think a standardized table with set parameters (there is a LOT of variation!) would be good for these articles, and would like to debate the issue in total again at WP:AIR. - BillCJ (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Um, before we even get to the content, there are MOS breaches all over the place. And inconsistencies such as the double adjective "double-deck", which is variously hyphenated (correct) and unhyphenated. "4 million cubic yards"—I think one decimal place is necessary for the metric: 3 is just too off the mark. 30 miles = 48, not 50 km. Check all conversions. "But though"—are both words necessary? "250 -100s"—MOS suggests spelling out 250 in this instance. "short range versions"—hyphenate; why in quotes previously? Why do we need that little-known country "Japan" linked once, let alone twice? Why is 747-200M et al. bolded? I see hyphens that should be en dashes in the Notes. I see references to web pages I don't know whether to trust: airliners.net; I see author not cited in the Notes (Chaz Hinkle, Ref 116). Needs a sift through the references. Deagal? Who are they? Who's the author? Sloppily written web page. Tony (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The conversions are correct. The numbers have been rounded to proper number of signficant figures, e.g. 1 for 4 mil cu yd/3 cu m and 30 miles/50 km. Variants are bolded for emphasis on their first use. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll just throw in that bolding of variants the first time they're mentioned (if not every time they're mentioned) is quite common in aircraft encyclopedias and reference works. The practice seems to originate with the annual Jane's All the World's Aircraft. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notes: Please see WP:MOSBOLD (Wiki doesn't use bold for emphasis). Please see WP:TRIVIA regarding the "Incidents" and "Preserved aircraft" sections; these two sections appear to be lists of trivia, discouraged. Please discuss the heavy reliance on Boeing as a source. Please see WP:GTL and WP:MOS, commons belongs in External links, See also should not contain links already included in the body of the article, and navigational templates go at the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done Preserved aircraft as a list of trivia eliminated and integrated into article as a section.Archtransit (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UT
          •  Done Reduced Boeing references to roughly 40 references and an overwhelming majority are non-Boeing references.Archtransit (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done Elminated external links that are in the article already. Archtransit (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Incidents (crashes) is an established section in airliners. Eliminating it would make the article non-standard. Only major crashes, not trivia, are listed. Many of these crashes changed the way things are done.Archtransit (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done Bolded variants in text unbolded. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Not done struck two items completed, and there are now cite errors. There is still listy trivia that should be converted to prose, navigational templates mid-stream, items mentioned in See also that are included in article, and reliance on Boeing sources hasn't been discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              •  Done "listy trivia" now substantial crashes and changed to prose. Boeing sources discussed in talk page and also reduced in number so that other sources far outnumber it. Cite errors no longer there, thanks to Fnlayson!Archtransit (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                •  Not done Trivia struck; from reading edit summaries, there appears to be some confusion between external links and see also. Navigational templates belong at the bottom of the article, and articles already linked in the body of the text are not repeated in See also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There apparently is. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:05, 28 December 2007 (GMT)
                    •  Done Followed SandyGeorgia's suggestions. See also fixed. Looked for articles already linked to see that no duplication. Navigational templates put at the bottom of the article. (I interpret navigational templates to be those horizontal blue bands that expand, these bands are entitled "Boeing airliners", "Giant aircraft", "Lists relating to aviation". If incorrect interpretation, please let me know.) Archtransit (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I struck one more, there is still the matter of repeat links in See also. Two weeks in, there are still four substantial Opposes on this FAC; I will let it go a bit longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        •  Done There is no more "see also" section so problem solved. It seems that all the objections have been addressed so the opposition question should be resolved. Also, I don't see four objections. There's only 1 opposition; User:O whom some say is commenting on bad faith and is opposing articles when discussion should be at the MOS or WikiProject level (but whom I'm just interested in addressing his/her complaints, not throwing punches or making accusations). Otherwise all other opposition has been fixed; User:JCG33 (problem fixed, didn't come up with additional complaints), User: 4u1e (who makes suggestions, all followed), User:RJH (who struck out opposition after everything fixed), Jayron32 (everything fixed and also LOCE editor approved and fixed it afterwards), Tony (everything fixed with the units, etc.)Archtransit (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Whether you label it "Related content" or "See also" there are still links in that section which are repeated in the article and repeated in the navigational templates. They aren't needed in See also/Related content. See WP:ALSO. There are still four Opposes on the page. Reviewer's concerns are considered addressed when opposes are struck by the reviewer. Copyedit and content concerns raised by reviewers cannot be overlooked. See WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • See also part is done! Sorry for the confusion between see also and related content. Again, we are not trying to fight you, just improve it! The copyedit comments were made before LOCE review. Before we had LOCE review the article, we re-reviewed it ourselves (showing that we are trying hard!). I've reminded the 4 reviewers to come back here to hopefully strike out the "oppose". Archtransit (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • The Related content template started out as a Navbox. It basically still is, but does has a more normal section format now. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where our MoS is in tension with widely-used publishing conventions within a particular subject area, it seems to me to be a textbook case of WP:IAR. What's more, the intention of MOS:BOLD is apparently to discourage the use of bolding for emphasis; the aviation publishing convention has nothing to do with emphasising meaning, but apparently to help readers looking for information on a particular subtype or variant of the aircraft being described. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The aviation publishing convention doesn't apply here. MOS must be adhered to in all FAs (WP:FA?). 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:35, 27 December 2007 (GMT)
              • What WP:FA actually asks is that the article "follows the style guidelines", which is a mite less strident than "MOS must be adhered to" (emphasis yours) don't you think? This is particularly so when MOS itself states that its contents "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". --Rlandmann (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Not a problem! Thanks to Fnlayson, bolding eliminated. I concur! Let's work together (isn't that slogan familiar? Boeing people?) to get the FA star! Archtransit (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, 30 miles is 48, not 50 km. Other issues I raised not addressed. Plus: ellipsis dots need spacing (MOS); "It has wing tip extensions of 6 feet (1.8 m), winglets of 6 feet (1.8 m)"—hyphen needed and can it be reworded to avoid the ugly repetition? Non-breaking spaces are necessary to avoid what I see now: "The -400", with the hyphen dangling at the end of a line.
    • Why does "wing tip extensions of 6 feet (1.8 m)" need hypens? I'd understand if it said 6-feet (1.8 m) wing tip extensions. The hanging hypen is a browser problem. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Wing-tip extensions"—it's not a common construction, which makes the hyphen more necessary. See MOS on hyphens. Tony (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The browser problem is solved by using the {{nowrap}} template. Same for all the WP:NBSPs needed between Boeing (non-numerical) and the numerical element of the name. Unfortunately an article like this is top-heavy on the need for either nowrap or NBSP. It would be ideal if you all would find a way to deal with the unsightly hyphens before numbers so you wouldn't have to nowrap them, but I guess that's the way ya'll do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah. Fixed now with the nowrap templ. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Por nada. This came up at 7 World Trade Center which was also heavy on the linewrap problems. Having the 7 on one line and the World Trade Center on the next was ugly, and fixing it was a lot of work :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a well written article that strikes a balance between being too simple and too technical. It mentions some unusual information that even some of the Boeing highlights glosses over. If there were some faults (as mentioned above), I don't see them now (and I've studied this article for nearly an hour). Of the 5 of so FAC's that I've reviewed recently, this is the best one without any question especially when looking at the big picture. Although I wouldn't disqualify it because of the infobox photo, I'd recommend either a photo of a 747-100 or the best selling model. The 747-200 didn't sell as well (?) so having a rarity in the infobox doesn't seem right.Congolese fufu (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Struck through prior oppose. In the last few weeks, the language and organization have been tightened up quite a bit. This is now a great article about a very signifcant aircraft, and everyone that has worked on it should be quite proud. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boeing_747&oldid=1138456225"