Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 757

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boeing 757 edit

I am nominating this article for A-class review, in light of the article's improvements following successful GA assessment and incorporation of suggestions from FA sibling article Boeing 767. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approve - article is properly cited and is structured well. Almost FA grade, but I wouldn't go there just yet. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 19:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compdude123's review edit

I haven't done much editing to this article, so I'm going to take the liberty to review it.

Lead – In the first sentence it says that the 757 was "built by Boeing Commercial Airplanes from 1981 to 2004," but in the infobox, it says "1982–2004." Why doesn't the text agree with the infobox? Other than that, everything in the lead looks fine to me. —Comp dude¹²³ 16:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Development – Looks great, every sentence is sourced. Will take a closer look soon.

More reviewing to come... —Comp dude¹²³ 16:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye, thanks for catching the infobox date, it's been corrected. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my review of the rest of this article:

The development section looks great. The only issue I see is the arrangement of pictures in the "Further developments" section. It would make more sense to have the Shanghai Airlines photo go first, with the winglets photo afterwards in order to better match the surrounding text. —Comp dude¹²³ 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Design – In the second paragraph of the "Overview" section, where it mentions that the 757 was the "the first jetliner to offer carbon brakes as a factory option," you should say when they were first offered. From looking at the ref, it appears as though they weren't offered from the very start of development. Other than that the section is just marvelous. —Comp dude¹²³ 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Variants – Looks great. I don't see many specific issues with the section. —Comp dude¹²³ 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The operators section looks good, but I have one question: In the orders/ deliveries table, wouldn't it make more sense to have it start at 1978 instead of 2005? That would make more sense. —Comp dude¹²³ 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidents and accidents section is great. I like that it's written in prose rather than list format that is seen at so many other aviation articles. —Comp dude¹²³ 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the specifications section, it's hard to read the text in the image, and clicking on the image to show the file description page doesn't help. I would suggest contacting the image uploader asking him to make the text bigger. —Comp dude¹²³ 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a great article and is pretty close to FA status and definitely ready to be promoted to A-Class. Great work on this article! —Comp dude¹²³ 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, and for the constructive comments! In the development section, "last 757" and "winglet" photos have been placed closer to the relevant text. In the design section, the year that the carbon brakes option became public, 1982, has been added. For the orders/deliveries chart, I wouldn't mind having the dates start at the first year and proceed chronologically, however all the other airliner articles use a backwards chronological order for some reason.

For the specifications section, the chart has been removed--quality, readability, and other concerns were brought up for the same type of chart when Boeing 767 went up for review. Because that image had to be removed to pass FAC, I've removed it here as well. Thanks again for the review, and for your support. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always feel free to revert my copyediting. I made the following changes:

"two-crew": two-seat [some readers will assume you mean that there are two crews]
"to obtain a common type rating for both aircraft": to obtain a common type rating that allows them to fly both aircraft [most readers are unlikely to guess what this means without a little explanation]
"The original 757-200 entered service in 1983 while the 757-200PF, a package freighter (PF) variant, and the 757-200M, a passenger-freighter combi model, debuted in the late 1980s.": The usual style guides recommend against "while" when it could easily mean either "whereas" or "at the same time", and recommend against any word when you have to read for a while to find out which it means. I went with a semicolon.
"October 28, 2004": October 28, 2004,. See WP:Checklist#second comma.
"898 examples of the twinjet": "examples" is not a great word for this sense. "898 of the 757s" - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, edits, and information; I have also swapped out the "two-crew" wording for "two-person flight crew." Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. If would be great to see a long string of aviation articles at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"with its role eventually taken by the versions of the 737.": 737s fulfilled its envisioned role. (Don't worry too much about this one; Garner's vaguely frowns on "with" + noun + participle, calling it an "absolute construction", and the fixes vary. When it's a present participle, User:Tony1 calls this "noun plus -ing".)
"two-crew": I went with "two-crewmember" on this one ... does that work?
"Due to their design similarities, pilots rated on the 757 could be qualified to fly the 767 and vice versa, after completing a short conversion course.": After completing a short conversion course, pilots rated on the 757 could be qualified to fly the 767 and vice versa, owing to their design similarities.
"In opting": Opting
"... British Airways and Rolls-Royce lobbied the British aircraft industry to manufacture 757 wings, but this did not occur.": British Airways and Rolls-Royce unsuccessfully lobbied the British aircraft industry to manufacture 757 wings.
"Ultimately, approximately half": Ultimately, about half (Garner's doesn't care for "approximately", especially near other big words.)
"utilized": used (they have slightly different meanings, per most style guides) - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for the suggestions and edits! I'll have to keep an eye out for Garner's; those recommendations are quite useful. Also, "two-crewmember" has the benefit of being more succinct than "two-person flight crew", so I added it to the lead as well. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In Asia, after an initial purchase by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) in 1987, Chinese orders grew to 59 aircraft, making it the region's largest 757 market.": After an initial purchase ... making it Asia's largest 757 market."
"This followed several incidents of small private aircraft experiencing loss of control when flying closely behind the twinjet, of which two resulted in fatal crashes.": This followed several incidents, including two fatal crashes, in which small private aircraft experienced loss of control when flying close behind the twinjet.
"a 23.4 feet (7.13 m) stretch": a 23.4-foot (7.13 m) stretch
"with 27 months targeted between launch and certification": 27 months from launch to certification - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Since the end of production, most 757s have remained in service, with the majority of these aircraft operating in the U.S.": ... in service, most in the U.S.
"the only narrow-body aircraft to be used by all four U.S. legacy carriers, with Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways all operating large fleets.": Another "with" + noun + participle. I went with: "the only narrow-body aircraft to be used by the large fleets of all four U.S. legacy carriers: Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways." - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Dank

"150-seat narrow-bodies such as the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 encroached on the lower end of the 757's seating capacity.": I'm not sure what "encroached" means here; were those models used on some routes?
"allowed airlines to use the aircraft on a variety of nonstop routings": "on longer routes", maybe?
"along with charter airlines": I'd prefer you specify "some", "many", "most", or something.
"airlines began using the 757 on transatlantic routes between North America and Europe": Isn't that implied, more or less, by the previous sentence? Could you trim some of this? - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to: "[MD-80s] were cheaper to acquire and carried nearly as many passengers as some airlines' 757s."
Changed to: "on longer nonstop routes."
Changed to: "Many charter airlines, including..."
Trimmed to: "airlines expanded international 757 services." Thanks for the questions and edits, this is great! SynergyStar (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. "In the early 2010s, the 757 has remained": "has remained" requires "since" rather than "in". Also: do you mean since 2010 or since 2011? - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It simply meant "up to now" or "currently"; that sentence has changed quite a bit over the months...now it's "In the 2010s, the 757 is..." Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki is running slow, so I'll finish up with comments here:

"re-engined": I don't know what this means.
Please go through and add "adj=on" to the convert template where it's needed.
Search for "situation" and see if you can reword the sentence without it.
"the flight deck is upgraded with the addition of a Honeywell ...": Not technically redundant, since "upgraded" alone would imply the new unit replaced something, and maybe it didn't ... but it sounds redundant. See if you can reword.
"offers up to a six abreast layout": reword as, for instance, "seats up to six per row"
"garment bag length overhead bins": garment-bag-length overhead bins
"rear economy class galley": rear economy-class galley
"in the 2000s": ambiguous (it could mean 2000-2009, or this century).
Otherwise, so far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Boeing 757#Variants. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to: "a redesigned 737 family with new engines"
Convert: will keep a lookout for further adj-on items
Changed to: "conditions"
Reworded to: "the updated flight deck features a Honeywell..."
Reworded to: "seat arrangements of up to six per row "
Hyphenated: "garment-bag-length" and "economy-class galley"
Specified date: "In 2001, American Airlines...[and Delta Air Lines] in 2010." Thanks again! SynergyStar (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Delta Air Lines: they installed the bin extensions in 2000, not 2010. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 22:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the date! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article is fully referenced and of high quality with no biased/POV content. I feel it meets the A-class criteria. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.