Jump to content

Talk:Boeing 747/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

GA Review

There are some issues with this article that need to be resolved before it is promoted. I will outline them below.

1) Images

  1. The Air France photo's template has depreciated and must be replaced.
  2. Consider moving the images around a bit instead of all having them on the right hand side. Also consider making a few of the images bigger. This would make the article more visually appealing. As it stands now, the images are so small, and surrounded by a wall of text to the left hand side.

2) Content

There are a few things that need changes here.
  1. The 747-8 sections under 'Variants' repeats the information in the 'Future of the 747' section. There is no need to have this information twice in the article. I would eliminate the 'Future' and the 747-8 variant subsections and create a new section towards the end of the article discussing the plane's future. This would prevent the repetition of information
  2. I also find the 'Variants' section to be extremely choppy due to all the subheadings. I would recommend consolidating the subheadings into four sections: 747-100, 747-200, 747-300, 747-400 and 'Undeveloped Variants.' The 747-8 should be discussed in the future section. In each of these subsections, the additional variants can be elaborated upon using bold text. See the A380 article in the 'Design' subsection to see what I mean. Doing this would make the article flow better. The military section does not need to be changed.
  3. Eliminate the 'Facts and Figures' section - it is trivia under another name.
  4. Why are some of the footnotes completely italicized? The authors name and page number need not be italicized. Only the title of the work need be. Please change this.
  5. The 'Development' section should be split into a 'History' section and a 'Design' section. As it stands now, if I want to find out what the plane's design is, I have to go through the development section to find little snippets of information. There needs to be a place where the planes physical appearance and technology is summarized. See the A380 article to see what I mean.
  6. The paragraph at the end of the incident section is unreferenced.

After these changes have been made I will go through the article again to see if anything else needs to be done. If there are any questions, please refer to my talk page. Zeus1234 08:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The sections follow the WP:Aircraft layout. As such the Development section covers the entire development history. There should be a separate Design section. Also, WP:Trivia does not require the total elimination of trivia sections, only the minimization of them. -Fnlayson 09:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The WP: Aircraft layout section is merely a suggestion and does not need to be followed. You can certainly still have a development section that covers the planes history, but I still think you really need a design section as well. I think the design section should incorporate much of the design information currently in the development section, which should then be shortened. I am sort of using the A380 article as a guide to judge this one, as it is already a GA, and in my opinion, a very good article. Zeus1234 16:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Working on some of your comments. The Future of the 747 section also covers recent events/developments. A better section name may be in order. -Fnlayson 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
And I reverted this change, where's the dubious template? --Denniss 18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It's seen on the image page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:540756.jpg It says: This template is deprecated by ((PermissionOTRS)) and ((PermissionOTRS-ID)). Please do not use this template anymore; instead, replace it with ((PermissionOTRS)). (parentheses changed to show the actual text and not the templates themselves). Or at least it did when I saw it. It has been changed since. Respectfully, SamBlob 03:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That was the only "problem"? Please read these tags more carefully in the future, that was only an informal notice about not to use the old OTRS template anymore for new uploads. It was easy t fix by using the new OTRS template. --Denniss 15:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think all those points have been addressed one way or another. Excess italics in references removed, image placement adjusted some, extra variant section labels removed and a Design section added. -Fnlayson 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I took another brief look at the article, and noticed three more things that need to be addressed (sorry for not noticing them sooner). Firstly, the web references need an access date. Also, the lead should be expanded slightly to include more information from the article. It should be roughly double to triple its current size. Add more information about the plane's history, some of the variants, and perhaps mention one its serious incidents. The lead should act as 'mirror' of the entire article, and should thus incorporate of bit of everything. At the moment, it really only incorporates info from the design section, recent developments and deliveries. More is needed from the other sections. I also think that with the design section added the article is too long. I would recommend spinning of the incidents section and the preserved aircraft section into their own articles. This way you can have a list of all known 747 incidents without cluttering the article. However, since the incidents are important, perhaps leave a short list of the most serious incidents, or discuss them as a whole in a paragraph and not a list. These changes should not be too difficult and once they are completed I will definetly pass the article. Zeus1234 20:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI—the "Facts & figures" section needs to be integrated into other parts of the article. I just tagged it as trivia. O2 (息 • 吹) 23:03, 22 October 2007 (GMT)

I've gotten in trouble for leaving the article on hold for too long (despite giving the list of extra demands - which is why I left it for so long), so I have no choice but to fail it as not everything has been completed. Zeus1234 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

GA renomination or just general improvement

I was looking for GA quality articles that are not GA. I saw this one with a lot of potential. However, it was just denied GA days ago. Therefore, I would like to hold off on GA renomination but I would like to improve the article as if it were for GA nomination or re-nomination. As far as general interest, the 747 generates more interest than the Dassault Mercure or Convair 880. Archtransit 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the outline to provide focus:

  1. It is well written.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  5. It is stable
  6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.

My plan is to work from the bottom up and use the suggestions noted in the original GA. I also plan to do only 1 of the 6 tasks per day to allow others to edit and to limit the number and types of changes that I do (avoid filling up edit history too much)Archtransit 18:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for adding the references. Your help is appreciated. I'd like see more of the design info in the Design section rather than spread out in the Variant subsections. I'll try to work on that as I can. -Fnlayson 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It is my understanding of MoS Images that images should start a section on the right so text is directly below the section header. That's why I only put a couple images on the left. -Fnlayson 18:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

photo change

I've replaced the Iran Air 747-100 photo with a PA 747-100 photo. I am discussing it due to the possible sensitivites between the government of Iran and the US, which some may conclude is a swipe by an American puppet against Iran. This is not the case. The Iran Air photo is against very white clouds so the upper deck contour is hard to see. The other photos in the article have a stretched upper deck. The replacement PA photo clearly shows the original smaller upper deck as well as the few upper windows. If one knows of a picture with a 70's PA or other livery, this might be even better. Or if one wants to compromise and use another 747-100 which clearly shows the upper deck and windows, then this is ok with me.Archtransit 18:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

GA criteria #6 is about photos. Most of them are already in place. Photos that I think are important are 747-100 upper deck, preferable the one with few windows, 747SP, 747-400 (winglets should be shown), a freighter version, cockpit. Almost as important is a VIP version, 747LCF, and at least one of the above photos showing the JT-9-D engine and a more modern PW4000, CF-6-80, or RB211 engine on another photo. Photo quality should be good. If possible, an airline should be shown only one, not on 2 or more photos. Archtransit 18:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like a photo of a 747-100 with a GE90-115 engine? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Having it available always is nice. It could be a basis to start a paragraph of the 747 used as a testbed and/or used in a GE90 article.Archtransit 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to get a couple uploaded this afternoon. Also have one with a CF34 as well (talk about going from underpowered to overpowered!), if you like. Also, to make the story of the 747 lifecycle complete in the article, would you like a pic of a 747-100 getting ripped apart by a scrapper? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, pics have been uploaded to commons, if you'd like to use them. Image:Ge-747-N747GE-020918-03.jpg shows 747-100 l/n 16 (ex-PAA, FWIW) with a GE90-115. Image:Ge-747-N747GE-020404-01.jpg shows it with the CF-34. Image:Co-747-N33021-040108-05.JPG shows a Continental 747-100 getting scrapped. Hope these help with the project! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Just curious, any particular reason the -400 is compared to the -100 in the caption instead of the previous -300? Me as a reader would want to know what changed from -300 to -400. Maybe others are different on that. -Fnlayson 17:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a good philosophical question. Should everything be compared to the -100 or the previously designed version. To me, it's not a clear answer but comparing to the previous version may be less unwieldy so it's a change that I'll make to the caption and article. Archtransit 15:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Criteria 4: neutral

Some of this may seem nitpicking, but it's part of my thought process. I will be considering over the next few days some sentences, including:

The 747 was born from the increase in air travel in the 1960s. (probably ok, see if citation exist, consider if cynical viewpoint, such as loss of C-5 competition was the cited factor in 747 development, see if Juan Trippe was the driving factor, etc.)
Section:Development/background. Joe Sutter (consider if this is neutral, should be incorporated as a phrase since too much weight given to the man, leave alone, etc.)
Some of these problems with aircraft development, I will look at the citations to confirm they are objective. So far, they sound ok to me.
Entry into service subsection, Washington Dulles Int'l Airport is a new name, before it was called Dulles Int'l Airport, which caused confusion with Dallas. Also in that section, mention of concern of fuel efficiency. Shortages were a problem but was the 747 seen as inefficient, especially cost per seat mile? Or was it just that traffic was down due to recession.

That's enough for now. I also want to do some thinking to whether anything big was omitted.Archtransit 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidents- CI 006 [1] is listed. I'm not sure this is as notable as the other incidents. No fatalities and no big lesson or change (from an encyclopedia's viewpoint) arises from this incident. Recommend removal. It seems that only big crashes and incidents where a major, newsworthy lesson was learned qualifies for this section. Of course, there are always safety bulletins that are important for maintanence but isn't really for WP (unless a sub-article is written). Also, off the top of my head, I can think of other crashes. For example, a Flying Tigers 747 crashed near Kuala Lumpur about 20 years ago. So did an AI 747 near Mumbai in the late 70s. I'm not a walking encyclopedia, but these are 2 that pop into my head. I haven't decided if the last two are notable.Archtransit 20:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

After about 10 days, there's no heated opposition to the above so I'll follow the above discussion and delete the 2 incidents. Archtransit 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

747-8 Fuel Capacity

I noticed that the Specs for the 747-8 listed the same fuel capacity as the -400. Although it is supposed to be more efficient, I don't think it can go an extra 800 nm with 100k extra pounds on the same amount of fuel. Does anybody have a source on this?

cheers, Mgw89 22:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems better. I never said it was not more efficient, I merely pointed out that the advertized 15% increase would necessitate more fuel, given that passenger miles are increasing by more than 15%. Mgw89 (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

China Airlines 006 incident

What about the China Airlines 006 Incident? on Feb 19 1985 a 747 was flying from Taipei to Los Angeles. they were ten hours into the flight at 41,000 feet when engine 4 was giving trouble and reving lower than it was supposed to. the crew got fixated on the problem and didn't realise the plane was going into a dive because of thick cloud. they thaought their attitude indicators were malfunctioning. when they realised they were in a dive the pilots tried to regain control of the aircraft by pulling back on the stick. the plane pulled +5G's and -3G's and two passengers were severely injured. At 12,000 ft they broke the cloud and at 9,600 ft they brought the plane back to level flight but their vertical stabilizers and elevators were not responding. they managed to land the plane at LAX on only engine power and their ailerons. The vertical stbilizers were badly damaged in the dive with at least 1/5 of each one ripped off. All the passengers survived. The problem was traced to jet lag and fatigue. During the past week the captain passed through over 15 timezones leaving him severely jet lagged. Hornet94 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This kind of analysis is certainly welcomed, at least by me. There is not a clear cut criteria about what incidents are notable. There was some discussion that hull loss makes it notable. There are lots of incidents that, if included, would overwhelm the article. One solution, if many more incidents are included, is to start a sub-article about incidents. Even the current list excludes some hull losses, like the Flying Tigers crash in Malaysia. Archtransit (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the incident was not notable in the context of the Boeing 747 article, nobody died, the aircraft was repaired and the causes had nothing to do with a failure of aircraft or design. MilborneOne (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Tis incident is not notable, or significant to include here. But the incident involves a 747SP and is already included in that wiki article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
CI006 has been re-added but I removed it. The article is already LOCE approved and being considered for FA. It's best letting that take its course then we can be more free to add material. CI006 was originally removed because hull loss seems to be the criteria for inclusion into the accidents list. JL907 is a near miss of which there are many. Consider starting a new article about 747 incidents and then one can link it to this article. Archtransit (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifications chart

At least one editor is aware of my long term goal to get this article to GA. Working my way up from the bottom, first from criteria 6 to 5 to 4, etc. and also working my way from the bottom of the article, the specification chart is next on my list (other users don't have to follow my own order of work tasks to be done).

Is the selection of variants correct? Why not add the 747SP? Why not delete the 747-400ER few of them were made for QF? If included, the engine choice is not correct. I need to check but I think QF ordered GE engines. PW engines were offered but none ever sold. Proposal: add 747SP, delete 747-400ER, make notation that the 747-8 specifications are projected, and don't mention the freighter versions so as not to make the chart too big. Passenger versions get all the glory and reader attention. Archtransit (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The -400ER is the most recent variant that's been available. The -8 is really an advanced derivative of it. The SP didn't sell that well either. The engines listed are what Boeing lists on their tech spec pages. Evently the available options. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the PW engine from the 747-400ER because none were ever sold. Paper airline, that's what it is. I saw the reasonable explanation of Fnlayson about the pax capacity of the plane in the specification chart. Actually, Boeing's chart in their website calls it the "typical" seating capacity. The max capacity for a -100 was about 495 or so. This is not such a big matter but any opinions? Fn? Archtransit (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I had taken those to be maximums. But since the amount of coach and other classes can vary in a layout, typical does make sense. So that should be like "Seating capacity (typical)" or "Seating capacity, typical" then. The 2-class seating should be listed too, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have an idea to resolve the 400/400ER problem. Seeing as they are mostly the same, you could put them in the same column and italicize or otherwise specify ER numbers. This is what I did on the A340 page with the HGW variants, which are essentially ER mods of the -500 and -600. Mgw89 (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I had something like that in mind and sorta forgot. I put the -400 and -400ER data in 1 column with ER labels. I did something similar in the MD-11 article a while back. That leaves width for the 747SP now. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That was quick. Is there an easy way to add or subtract columns and change lines? When I did the A340 page I had to watch out for all the stuff in between, like "<center>". Mgw89 (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The table uses an align center thing at the top: style="text-align: center;". I just removed the "||" or changed the colspan commands to remove the extra column and added line breaks <br> to start new lines for the ER info. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just fixed the RB211 specs, it said the -524H made 59,500 lb thrust, it makes 60,600, the 59,500 one is the -524G that was also offered. Also, am I mistaken or were PW 4056's or 4058's also offered earlier? Mgw89 (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cabin Photos

Is it possible to add some photos of the 747 cabin? It would be particularly interesting, I think to many readers, to see the interior, and for instance the difference between the spiral staircase on the -100 and -200 vs. the straight staircase on the latter models. SynergyStar (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1st proposal for restructuring to reach GA status

Up until now, I have tried to work with others for incremental improvements. How about a moderate restructuring.
1. "Development" changed to "Early Development". Development of models after 747-100 to be presented with the description of each variant.
2. Non-aircraft readers may benefit from bring a shortened "Design" section to after the intro. Some of the design info can be moved to the variants.
3. The variants would cover
A. what led to the design of the variant,
B. How it is different,
C. if notable, what were the few airline or leasing companies that bought it, D. other info. Archtransit (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It still needs to follow WP:Air/PC guidelines on sections. There's a not too long Design section already. I think adding more summary info on 1970-2000 needs to be added to the Dev section and it'll be fine. The Variant info sounds fine. Might not be able to find all that though. I don't think it lacks much from getting to GA status. FA is a whole another matter. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The recent developments subsection was under Development (near the beginning of the article). the development section covers the early 747-100 development. Then the recent developments subsection talks about post 747-400 proposals. This doesn't seem to fit. Rather than delete a whole section, I've moved it to just above the 747-8. Obviously, that doesn't quite fit but it's only a temporary measure. In short, it's a fix of the Development section. Later, when the variants sections is fixed, the early development part can be re-done.

For convenience, here what the recent developments subsection said:
Since the arrival of the 747-400 in 1989, several stretching schemes for the 747 have been proposed, but the only design to be adopted is 2005's 747-8. The 747-X program was launched in 1996 as Boeing's response to the Airbus A3XX proposal. The 747-X would have consisted of the 747-500X and 747-600X, seating up to 800 passengers and powered by the Engine Alliance GP7200 turbofan developed for the Airbus A380. However, the airlines preferred Boeing to develop an all-new design instead of an updated 747, and the plan was dropped after a few months.

After development of the Airbus A380 formally began in 2000, Boeing reexamined its 747-X studies but instead focused on the Sonic Cruiser,[59] and then on the 787 after the Sonic Cruiser program was put on hold indefinitely.[60] Some of the ideas developed for the 747-X were, however, used on the 747-400ER.

In early 2004, Boeing rolled out tentative plans for the "747 Advanced". Similar in nature to the 747-X plans, the stretched 747 Advanced used advanced technology from the 787 to modernize the design and its systems. On November 14, 2005, Boeing announced it was launching the 747 Advanced as the 747-8.[61] In light of long delays in production of the Airbus A380, two Airbus customers signed additional orders,[62][63] two customers cancelled their A380 orders and several launch customers deferred delivery or considered switching their order to the 747-8 and 777F aircraft.[64][65] Eventually, the 747 (in all forms) may be replaced by a clean-sheet aircraft dubbed "Y3". Archtransit (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I still don't agree with this Early Development thing. The reader should be able to get a summary of how the 747 developed over the years without having to read the Variants sections. I wanted to fill in from the early stuff to the recent developments. Also, I think that's counter to the WP:Air layout guidelines. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to move the Undeveloped variants to the Development section and summarize them. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That's entirely reasonable. Should the development section cover all the variants? I thought (misunderstood?) that you thought the variant sections should cover the development of, say, 747-300. How about development of 747SP, 747-300, etc. be covered in the development section and more details in the 747-300 section, particular details about after it was launched? If so, the 747-300 section, for example, would cover what was finally done (seating capacity, staircase, for example) and cover airline and leasing company sales, and when the last one was built (in the 747SP, it would be interesting because Boeing re-opened the line for a VIP to buy one). Archtransit (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the Development section should at least mention the main variants in a summary manner. The details can stay in the variant sections like you're proposed (why, difference, & major airlines). There's uncited content in the Variant sections that is probably covered by the Boeing 747 pages, Airliners.net, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Error? 1st 747-300

and Swissair was the launch customer for the 747-300, but the first plane was delivered to French airline UTA on 1 March 1983.[1]

First newly built -300 to UTA, not Swissair. Not according to Boeing...http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/sevenseries/747.html

Will research. Archtransit (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a summary of the changes on the -300 in the Entry into service section. Also, have some info on the proposed 747-300 trijet (in chrono order roughly). Work that in with what you have or move it to the Variants -300 section. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's sensible to have the -300 trijet information either in the development section, undeveloped variant section, or -300 variant section. I prefer the first two over the latter as it may confuse the reader with the -300 trijet and the -300 or clutter it up. I've tried to keep developmental history out of the variant section and into the development section, keeping the variant section to a description about what was built, when it was built, etc. Will work on this tomorrow. Archtransit (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Internal Contradiction

This may sound nitpicky, but there appear to be contradictions within the article. In the "entry into service section, it states that the -300 had improved engines over the -200. In the variants section, it states that the -300 offered the same engines as the -200. Does anybody know what's up? Also, the -400 section claims that it had an all new interior, when it inherited a few things like the straight stairs from the -300. Mgw89 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just fixed the picture caption of the ANA -400 that said the CF6-80C2 was new from the -300, which appears not to be the case now. Mgw89 (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

747SP re-write

I've set up a personal goal of getting this article as the FA on the main page either on February 9, 2009 (40th anniversary of the 1st flight) or September 30, 2008 (40th anniversary of the rollout). That means getting FA status a few weeks before that.

On the 747SP section, I deleted (at least temporarily) the part of the 747SP trying to compete with the DC-10 because they served different market segments and for lack of a citation. Will consider puttin it back later, if possible. Some minor rewrites including removing the part about that it was a shortened version of the -100 because it's really more than that (wing changes, vertical stabilizer changes, 45,000 lbs lighter (of which ony half of it is from less fuselage), etc. The re-write of this section continues. Archtransit (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

747SR re-write

The basics are there, will need some editing, which I'll do today and tomorrow. Any suggestions or edits that you think are out of place, let me know. Archtransit (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • "can carry more passengers." Isn't this is only true because the plane is all coach, not because of a larger cabin. If so, rewording may be needed.
  • "just a very few in operation". Plan on looking at census websites and delete. The statement contradicts earlier statements that JAL and ANA have retired their SR's. Archtransit (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The all coach seating was my understanding. That -100 summary paragraph includes the -100SRs. That's why it was after the -100SR info. Seems like the 747SP and SR parts should be subsections of the -100 section. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Seems to be many ways of doing it. However, SP was not really like a -100. It's different from the other variants or at least similar to the -200 (engine-wise). Another problem is that the sub-subsection (4 = marks in wiki write-up) looks the same sub-sections (3 = marks). So the -100SR sub-subsection looks like another subsection. Archtransit (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

747 LCF re-write

The basics are there with little need for rewrite. I've added references and tweaked the sentences. The main area of potential controversy is what is the thing called? I'll presume that Boeing's terms carry the most weight. They've called it the 747 Large Cargo Freighter, 747-400 Large Cargo Freighter, and said they gave it a new name of Dreamlifter. I've never seen others call it the 747-400 Large Cargo Freighter (too long?). Is Dreamlifter the new and only name? Or is it 747-400 Large Cargo Freighter Dreamlifter? If we stick with referenced named (after all, Wikipedia is all about references and not about our personal unsupported opinions), we will probably be ok.Archtransit (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Undeveloped variants

There was a statement with a citation needed tag saying that the -500X/-600X weren't developed because airlines balked at the cost. I couldn't find a citation. I thought part of the reason for not developing the plane was because there was thought to be a larger market for smaller widebodied aircraft, which is different from the above reason. I've deleted the reason as not necessary. Most cancellation are a combination of factors, such as not enough sales for the development costs. Only a few times are they technical impossibilities, like the V2500 Super Fan.Archtransit 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I couldn't find a reference on why it got dropped. The 777 was starting up then, true. I've been working on those sections. I found a reference with reason(s) for Boeing moving on. -Fnlayson 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong work! Aside from minor editing on the undeveloped variants, the citation that I'm looking for is a statement saying that, until the 787 was launched, Boeing put a lot of proposals for 747 variants that were never launched. People began to accuse them of proposing paper airplanes much like the countless MD-11 proposals. I read it a few years ago and know that such a statement does exist, probably in Aviation Week and Space Technology. A minor note: my edits are at 747 mainspace edits and almost 1767 total edits. So I must stop for today! Archtransit 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I had moved the -300 Trijet info to Development section with the plan to condense and move the other undeveloped variants there too. But it looks like too much info to easily do that. The Trijet info needs a reference and I haven't been able to find anything. -Fnlayson 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Your goal is logical (undeveloped variants to development section). Implementation is difficult. The text is long but can't be cut much unless one leaves important information out. Long text tend to overwhelm the article. If left there, we could use the excuse that the undeveloped variants are mostly a description of what was planned and that it's written in the same style as the SP, -300, etc. As far as a reference for the trijet, I might look in the library for Joe Sutter's book, "747", to see if there's a mention. Archtransit 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I have Sutter's book and don't remember the trijet study being mentioned. Guess I can double check that anyway. I think the undeveloped variants sections are OK. The -500X/600X, 747X & QLR lead up to the -8 and there's no other good place for the info (would hate to lose it). -Fnlayson 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
        • The citation needed tag for the trijet has been removed. The passage about the hump interfering with airflow to a tail mounted center engine may be true and is noted in some internet forums (but I can't find a reliable source by WP criteria). I replaced it with a sourced statement that a wing redesign would have been necessary for the trijet. Also note that a hump does not preclude a center engine. See the Global Hawk UAV which has a hump like an upper deck and a center engine. Archtransit (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox photo

In recent days, there have been more than one change to the infobox photo. A Virgin Atlantic 747-400 then an Air New Zealand 747-400 then a Singapore Airlines -400.

I don't mind a rotating stock of photos or a single photo that doesn't change. Clarity and contrast are important. All 3 photos qualify. I think we should try to avoid featuring an airline more than once. I also think the 747-100/200 or -400 should be shown, which are representative variants, not an odd variant like the 747SP (which I personally like!). Archtransit 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Also, did you mean -300? The -400 has its own page. BillCJ 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We usually pick the picture of the aircraft that is the most aesthetically pleasing and can show the bulk of the aircraft at one time. That's why I replaced the Virgin Atlantic picture with the Air New Zealand one; the latter's position looks similar to the A340. Attic Cat (alternate account of User:O) 20:55, 03 December 2007 (GMT)
Here's a showcase of the 747 pictures that has been in the infobox, starting with the one for which I first encountered:
  • JAL 744
    JAL 744
  • Virgin Atlantic Airways 744
    Virgin Atlantic Airways 744
  • Air New Zealand 744
    Air New Zealand 744
  • [Most recent] Singapore Airlines 744
    [Most recent] Singapore Airlines 744
Personally I'd take image resolution, overall quality, composition, sharpness, etc, etc. into consideration. Attic Cat (alternate account of User:O) 21:07, 03 December 2007 (GMT)

Agreed. The main criteria is to show most(if not, all) of the features of the aircraft and it would be good if the photo is rotated when someone has a better picture. Bonchygeez (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How this for a shot of a 747It shows for wing tip to wing tip also it shows more of the plane Sparrowman980 (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks like the left wing is attached to the plane. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 22:38, 07 December 2007 (GMT)
Isn't that a good thing? Aren't all wings suppoesed to be attached to the plane?? Any way the point is, it is a Qantas image, which is what makes it preferable in Sparrow's mind. All airliner page lead pics would be of Qantas planes if he had his way - believe me, he has tried! I really don't think it's the best image tho, as O tried to point out, it looks as if the wing is melded in to the front side of the fuselage. Personally, I think we shouldn't even be looking at -400 pics here, as the -400 has its own page. A good pic of a -100 or -200 would provide a good contrast to the -400 page's lead image. - BillCJ (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I meant the tip of the wing. Sorry for the confusion. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 17:36, 08 December 2007 (GMT)

Lol thanks Bill but go ahead and change what you need Sparrowman980 (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The above Virgin Atlantic is the latest to be on the infobox. Quite a good picture but it's grainy. Bonchygeez (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This image shows all parts of a 747 including detail on the engines that cant be seen on the others Nikkul (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the JAL, Virgin AA, & Singapore one. A side or side/front view seems best. It looks odd to have the plane flying away (rear/side view). Also, I don't think the dark, cloudy backgrounds are a good idea. They seem to imply dark times or troubles to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use pictures from the Airlines using the most 747s Sparrowman980 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

747-400 rewrite

This section will take a while to rewrite. I redid the last paragraph. A major problem is that the Flight International citations are incomplete (see 2nd to last 747-400 section paragraph where operators are listed. Need page numbers for verification, not just a link to the magazine name and date. Also is the QF London-Sydney flight notable? A340 was used for a Paris Auckland flight with some passengers. 777-200LR also flew longer. Archtransit 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • That part is in chrono order, but the flight seems out of place. Just move it to the -400 article. ;) That has to be the longest -400 flight at the least. -Fnlayson 17:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • While some people want to boost their edit count, I want to restrict it (now at 787, 789 is no fun). What do you think about this shortened draft? Since there's a -400 article, there's an easy link for those interested. What limitations are placed on original research? Is looking up the user defined reports (search feature) in Boeing's website original research? Customer lists and orders are available there. Archtransit 19:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

. . .
The 747-400 was offered in several versions. It added 6 feet (1.8 m) wing tip extensions and 6 feet (1.8 m) winglets, tail fuel tanks, revised engines, an all-new interior, and an all-new glass cockpit which is designed for a flight crew of two instead of three. The freighter version does not have an extended upper deck.(add citation - found it - http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400f_back.html ) The -400 series offered increased range. The longer range was used by some airlines to bypass traditional stops, such as Anchorage.[2] The 747-400D was a version built for short range operations early in its lifespan with the intention[citation needed] of adding winglets later when the aircraft is converted for use in long range operations.[90] The -400ERF freighter and -400ER passenger versions offered additional range over earlier -400 models.[citation needed]

The passenger version first entered service in February 1989 with Northwest Airlines.[89] The combi version first entered service in September 1989 with KLM. The freighter version entered service in November 1993 with Cargolux. The -400ERF entered service in October 2002 with the -400ER entering service the following month with Qantas, the only customer which ordered the version.

In August 2006, a total of 627 Boeing 747-400 aircraft (all versions) were in airline service. Major operators include: British Airways (57), Japan Airlines (44), Cathay Pacific (43, plus 8 on order), Korean Air (43), Air China (12), Air India (12), Air New Zealand (8), All Nippon Airways (23), Asiana Airlines (14), China Airlines (34, plus 2 on order), EVA Air (18), Malaysia Airlines (19), Qantas (30), Singapore Airlines (23), Singapore Airlines Cargo (15), Thai Airways International (18), Air France (21), Cargolux (14, plus 2 on order), KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (25, plus 1 on order), Lufthansa (30), Virgin Atlantic Airways (13), Atlas Air (11), Northwest Airlines (16) and United Airlines (31). Some 24 other airlines also operate the type, but in smaller numbers.[65][citation needed](might be edited a bit, one problem is that the list favors airlines over leasing companies, who buy a lot of aircraft) By October 2007, 670 747-400 series aircraft had been delivered[3]. At various times, the largest 747-400 operator has been Singapore Airlines,[4] Japan Airlines,[5] and British Airways.[6]

The last passenger version of the 747-400 was delivered in April 2005 and Boeing announced in March 2007 that it has no plans to produce further -400 passenger aircraft.[92] However, there were orders for 36 747-400 freighters versions at the time of the announcement.

I think it would be better to rearrange the start like this:
The 747-400 was an improved model with added 6 feet (1.8 m) wing tip extensions and 6 feet (1.8 m) winglets, and a new glass cockpit which is designed for a flight crew of two instead of three. It also added tail fuel tanks, revised engines, and a new interior. It was offered in several versions. ...
That makes for a long first sentence though. The dimensions could be omitted here, I guess. Broke first sentence up. How is that? -Fnlayson 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the shortened summary. -Fnlayson 20:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

747-200

In progress. I am rewriting this section in the same style as the -400. Nothing major taken out except airline list. I am looking for references for some unreferenced statements in this section. Archtransit (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence removed. GE and RR engines available for the first time, the WP article said. Boeing website says GE and RR engines available for the -100 [2] Archtransit (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC) There was mention of who did -200 SUD conversions. I think KLM did some in house but I am having difficulty finding a reference. I deleted the distanction between those done by Boeing and KLM because it may be too detailed for the article.

Having a separate paragraph for each version (-200B, -200F, etc.) makes many very short paragraphs. Havind one paragraph is very long. For now, it's one big paragraph. Archtransit (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is or was?

Should we use "is" or "was"? The article uses both. Hypothetically....747 is an airplane. The 747-200 had 4 engines. Or -200 has 4 engines? Archtransit (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Depends on the sentence wording. For example "The 747 was developed in ..." and "The 747-300 is in service with ...". I think 'is' should be used since the planes still exist and are in use. At least a few of all the variants are being used somewhere I believe. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You probably figured out my plan. After the -200, I'll work on the -100. After that, then the monster section in the beginning about development. Some time, in between or afterwards, the grammar needs to be checked, like the "is" and "was". The references need to be made uniform. I have a new project that is due before the end of the month so I intend to go on partial wikibreak for 2 weeks starting today. You know me, I'll still come by to edit a bit almost every day. Archtransit (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

747-100 and Design section rewrite

I suggest a philosophical decision. The design section would be about how the original 747 was designed (-100). The other variant sections (such as -300, -400) discuss how the variant was different or improved. Archtransit (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not really a major change. It's almost no change, really. I think the design section is basically good the way it is with some very minor rewrite and/or adding references. Archtransit (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifications chart proposed change

How about deleting the engine choices from the -100 in the chart. The -100 was offered only with PW engines. The chart doesn't say -100B, which there were orders from one customer for RR engines. The GE engine was offered but never ordered. So the proposal is that the chart list only PW engines. (If a -100B column is added, which may be too detailed for WP, then RR and PW engines can be listed). Archtransit (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The table including engine options is based on the Boeing pages. Evidently they lumped -100(A) & -100B together there. Add references to the Sources below table for changes. I don't think the Design section should get into the range of each variant. Maybe something like "The 747's range was increased from 4500 nm on the -100 to 7600? nm on the -8." (with references of course). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The range sentence is there just to hold it there temporarily. I tend not to like to delete other's edits but rather to put it in the correct spot and then deal with it when re-writing that section. Will fix the design part in a few days if not done already. Archtransit (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Range sentence removed because it's in the specifications chart. Archtransit (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Development re-write

In general, the section is good. Part of a review is not only being critical about each sentence but thinking in a larger sense. What is this section missing?

One idea that might be added is the complexity of development. There were not just engine problems. On the other hand, the section is not to list a litany of problems. Engineers on the project could probably list 50,000 problems.

Nevertheless, building the plane was a highly risky undertaking for Boeing, both financially and technically. It stretched both airframe and engine technology. (a possible key phrase and idea for the article? From http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Boeing_747/Aero21.htm) Also noted in that source, "Safety was a top priority. If a 747 crashed, more people would be killed at one time than died in airplane accidents over an entire year. Boeing used a new method of spotting potential hazards known as "fault tree analysis," where engineers could easily see the impact of a failure of one part or system on other parts. The 747 became the first airplane to use this accurate method of forecasting possible trouble." Archtransit (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Units

The -100, -200, and -300 sections have the unit "miles", while the -8 uses nmi and the -400 currently has nothing. We should probably standardize nmi, seeing as they are the default unit in aviation, and mention km in parenthesis. Mgw89 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

References

We should decide on how to list references. We should list it one standard way. WP guidelines are that we can choose, no one way is better.

I think this way is much too cumbersome. It takes so long to type. <ref name="pbs-knife"> {{cite web | last = Cannon | first = James | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = | url = http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/essays/ford.html | title = Gerald R. Ford | format = | work = Character Above All| publisher = Public Broadcasting System | accessdate = 2006-12-28}}</ref>

I like this way. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/12/09/space.shuttle/index.html</ref>

I wonder if this modification is acceptable. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/12/09/space.shuttle/index.html Retrieved 2007-12-09

I don't really like a title with a square pointer link because I want to see what URL (www.---.com) it is.

Fnlayson does a spectacular job of cleaning up references. He names them, which is good for references used many times as long as the first time it's used, it isn't deleted by an editor. Archtransit (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Irving book is cited numerous times but not a complete citation. Possibly this http://www.amazon.com/Wide-Body-Triumph-747-Clive-Irving/dp/0688099025 Archtransit (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Bzuk is the real cleaner up of references. I appreciate his help. We don't have to use the cite templates. They are there to help, but require iso-formatted dates (year-month-day). A simple format would be like <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/..article.html "Title"], CNN, [[article date]].</ref>. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of -- Airline flew --- to --- when the 747 first came out in 1970

In the Entry into Service sub-section, there's mention of the first PA JFK-LHR flight. That's sensible. However, mention of other US airlines first flights may be regarded as US-centric, is not really too notable for the 747 article (but may be good for each airline's article). Why not move to the airlines' articles.

The 747-100 entered service on 22 January 1970 with launch customer Pan American World Airways on the New York-London route.[53] The flight was supposed to occur on January 21, but engine overheating made the original airplane unusable and it had to be substituted, creating a more than six-hour delay to the next day.[53] Pan Am added 747 services to London from Boston, Washington and other cities during the spring and summer of 1970.

Overnight, a new standard of air travel had been created and other airlines rushed to bring their own 747s into service. (Probably modify this sentence and add a reference) Trans World Airlines, Japan Airlines, Lufthansa, BOAC and Northwest Orient were among the first carriers to use 747s on long-haul flights. American Airlines started a 747 service between New York and Los Angeles by the summer of 1970, and in September 1970 added nonstop 747 flights between Washington and Los Angeles. Soon afterward American Airlines added a 747 service from Boston to Chicago and on to Los Angeles. In addition to its foreign destinations, TWA offered 747 flights between San Francisco and New York by early 1971.[citation needed] Archtransit (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Informal peer review by 4u1e

I'll just stick my thoughts here as I go along, if that's OK. Hope this is helpful!

  • Lead: wide body is linked at second appearance, not first, although I guess that may be because you didn't want to overload on blue links in the first line?
Done. Archtransit (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Lead: I may find this later in the article, but do significant numbers of 747s work as cargo carriers? If so, should this be mentioned in the lead?
Tentatively, I find it difficult to fit in without the intro becoming like a legal document with disclaimers (that a freighter was later developed) but we may think of something.Archtransit (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A sentence on the -400F could be added to 2nd paragraph similar to the passenger info. Going past that and it could easily balloon into a good sized paragraph as you say. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Lead: Going strictly by the recommended numbers, the lead's a little short. I haven't counted the words, but I guess that WP:LEAD#Length would be recommending four paras rather than three. I'll try and point out anything that could usefully be mentioned in the lead as I go down the page. 4u1e (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This merits group discussion. A new section in the talk page is being created.
  • Sources: As a general point, it would be great to see more use made of the plentiful hardcopy sources on the aircraft. The good thing about the online stuff is that everyone can access it, but 'proper' meaty books on a topic give the article more authority (imvho). For example, I'd be happier if a claim about the origins of the project didn't come from a short pen portrait (This ref, currently no.12) I'm not saying it's wrong, it's just a presentational thing. 4u1e (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
A fine suggestion. Perhaps, I get some books from the library and reference the statements in the article more.
  • Background and Design phase: Refs 12 and 13 are confusing me slightly! 12 says that Boeing considered "using the design as the basis for a commercial jetliner". 13 says (I suspect more accurately!) "Although the 747 was a completely new aircraft design (low wing, passenger-carrying civil aircraft), the general configuration influence of the earlier C-5 candidate is in evidence." Influence from an earlier design is a very different thing to developing an earlier design. Why not drop 12 and just use 13 as the ref for the link between the two projects? 4u1e (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed by clarifying second sentence.Archtransit (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Background and Design phase: I may have missed it, but there doesn't seem to be anything here on why having a larger aircraft was so desirable at this time. Could this be expanded on? (This is something that could be included in the lead)
I get the feeling that Juan Trippe really pushed for the plane.Archtransit (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
But even so, what's the advantage of having a larger plane? (Economics of taking more passengers in one go, the opportunity for more luxurious and hence more expensive first class accomodation, limitations on flights in and out of congested airports etc etc) 4u1e (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • B&D phase: (minor) Is Pratt the normal abbreviation for Pratt & Whitney? In the UK a prat is not a complimentary term. P&W instead?
Done, Thanks Fn.
Good point. Also trying not to be too US-centric. US products are competitive in Russia, witness the 737 sales. Archtransit (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Citation: Tastes differ on this. Going by by the book, this article is probably over-cited, although I can think of many editors who push for this level of citation. For example, why are two cites (1 & 28) needed to establish that Pan Am was a launch customer, probably common knowledge within the subject? Fwiw, my personal preference is to try and find one citation to cover a paragraph. It's often not possible, but I try to keep it as close as possible to that.4u1e (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is put together with many sources. Articles where there is a good review article in existance can use only 1 source per paragraph. By combining the resources of many sources (none of which themselves are comprehensive) adds value to WP. Some country articles and politician articles are the same. However, a thing to consider (number of sources).Archtransit (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
True. I think it's linked to quality of sources, a point raised above. This is only a suggestion, as far as I'm concerned. 4u1e (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We're still trying to rewrite parts and reference everything in the article now. We'll get to the comments as we can. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

part 2

Told you I'd keep coming back. Thanks for your responses so far, some more thoughts:

  • Production facilities: Worth mentioning why Boeing selected Everett? (Going by the source used for 'around 50 cities', the runway wasn't the only reason). May be slightly off-topic.
Fixed Archtransit (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed in this section that not all American units have been given metric equivalents (cubic yards, feet, acres). Suggest check this throughout.
Fixed by someone else already! Archtransit (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Production facilities: While you and I know that four years is a short time to achieve the delivery of a new aircraft type, not all readers will. Can you find a source which gives a feel for how this compares to then industry standard times? May not be possible.
Addressed by the "Incredibles" comment, which is a referenced comment.Archtransit (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Testing: The second and third paras of this section feel a little as if they've been stuck there. Hmm...Is fault tree analysis really part of testing? Or part of design? That para could be moved to the design section if so. If not, the second para may need a little more explanation to explain how the fault tree analysis was carried out in the testing phase. In any case, if the current second para immediately preceded the current fourth para, the flow would, I think, be improved.
  • Was Waddells' wagon successful?
Probably was but probably isn't used now since there are now 747 cockpits to sit in.
  • Was fault tree analysis successful?
Fault tree analysis has an article which discusses the process. I think that's a good compromise as some fault the 747 article for it's length. Archtransit (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Entry into service: Pan Am is linked again here - is this deliberate?
Fixed Archtransit (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Eis: 'creating a more than six-hour delay to the next day' Meaning that the flight the next day was delayed by six hours, or that the flight was delayed by six hours on the original day, and hence was moved to a second day? If the latter, suggest 'delaying the flight by more than six hours, which meant that it had to be postponed to the following day' or similar to be absolutely clear.
  • Eis: 'Overnight, a new standard of air travel had been created' Sounds good, but what exactly does that mean? It implies to me that the passengers had a much improved flight, but I haven't seen anything in the article yet to suggest that this would be the case. This sort of links to the point I made above about why a larger aircraft would be better. Did the launch 747s have improved passenger facilities, or was the extra space merely used to cram more people in (to the airline's advantage)?
Reworded Archtransit (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Suggest it's still not clear what is meant - is it really a new standard for passengers, for example, or for the airline? 4u1e (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Eis: 'Some airlines believed the 747 would prove too large for an average long distance flight, operating tri-jets instead.' Too large as in they wouldn't fill enough seats on each flight? Suggest clarify.
Reworded Archtransit (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be back. I should have mentioned before that this is a very informative article - good work! 4u1e (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

part 3

  • Eis: 'The shortened 747SP (Special Performance) with a longer range was also developed in the mid-1970s.[56] The -200 model followed, entering service in 1971' Presumably these two statements should be the other way round?
fixed
  • I think it would be helpful to add some overarching statements on timescales to the 'Entry into service' section - it's not all that clear what timeframe is being covered. i.e. What period is the third para talking about? What period is the second to last paragraph talking about? Does this para belong in 'Entry into service'?
Fixed Archtransit (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest that the final para of 'Entry into service' is moved to either 'Further developments' or 'Design'. It breaks the timeline where it is now - because it's talking about 2007, I was wondering what had happened in the 80s and 90s!
Fixed. Archtransit (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Paragraph and image moved. Part of that paragraph was in the lead at one time and it made sense in the EIS section before we expanded the further developments section. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Consider explaining/linking terms like 'gross weight' where they are introduced.
Fixed with wikilink. Archtransit (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Further Developments': Are "Since the arrival of the 747-400 in 1989, several stretching schemes for the 747 have been proposed, but the only design to be adopted is 2005's 747-8. Boeing announced the larger 747-500X/-600X designs in 1996.[66] The new variants would have been cost over $5 billion to develop,[66] and interest was not sufficient to launch" (third para) and "Prior to the launch of the 747-8, Boeing had consecutively proposed several variants that were never launched leading to the skepticism among some industry observers" (fourth para) saying the same thing? If so, one can go. If not, the difference between the two statements needs clarifying.
fixed with rewording Archtransit (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • FD: "Prior to the launch of the 747-8, Boeing had consecutively proposed several variants that were never launched leading to the skepticism among some industry observers" Should be 'leading to the skepticism' or 'leading due to the skepticism', I think.
Fixed. Archtransit (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • FD: "In light of long delays in production of the Airbus A380, two Airbus customers signed additional orders,[73][74] two customers cancelled their A380 orders and several launch customers deferred delivery or considered switching their order to the 747-8 and 777F aircraft." Consider re-casting this sentence so that it focuses more on the 747, i.e. "The 747-8 benefitted from additional orders in this period because...."
fixed Archtransit (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • FD: The previous section mentions many airlines dropping the 747. One gets the impression that that was the end of the aircraft, since there is no mention of airlines picking it up again. I assume that this is not the case (since I see a fair number of these things around!), so can we get more on how commercially successful it has been since the 1970s?
This feeling that you have is true. Lots of airlines, particularly US airlines, dropped the 747. American, Eastern, and Delta are only some examples. The 747 really picked up with the 747-400. Archtransit (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Variants': It's not always clear what the rationale for producing a particular variant was. Try and work it in for each one.
This is a difficult one to address as internal company strategy is often secret. We can address the results of the internal product evaluation (i.e., a stretched airplane) but not the secret deliberations when they were considering increased range, expanding the wingspan, changing something to reduce the price, etc. Archtransit (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Variants': Tense. Both past and present tense are used to refer to the variants, sometimes combined in the same sentence! I started trying to fix it, but realised that I don't know enough about the aircraft. Suggest the article needs a consistent approach. One solution, used for articles on Formula One cars, is to use present tense for variants that still exist (so, 'The -300M is a variant that....') and past tense only for those variants that have all gone out of service and been scrapped. There are other equally logical approaches.
Fixed. Descriptions are present tense. (The 747-100 has a wingspan of --). Past tense for events in development. (The 747-100 was designed with 4 engines to avoid ETOPS..this is just hypothetical and not actually in the article). Archtransit (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Specifications: What is the purpose of adding the generic equation for parasitic drag here?
(To avoid edit wars, 3RR, wikistalking, etc. Just kidding) Other editors may know
  • 'Incidents': Perhaps a bit listy? Suggest stripping out most of it, possibly to a 'List of 747 accidents', and leaving just a prose summary of events significant to this specific aircraft (i.e. first crash, worst incidents, anything relating to design flaws in the aircraft). Incidents like Lockerbie and the shooting down of the Koean Air plane could perhaps go in a revised 'In popular culture' section, if they illustrate a particular point.
Unsure how to do this yet still maintain uniformity with other articles. Could shorten some entries but a mere list of flight numbers and years seems inadequate. Archtransit (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Facts and figures': Looks suspiciously like a trivia section! Suggest that the first bullet can be worked into the text higher up, perhaps in conjunction with the max capacity of one of the 747 variants. The second bullet could form part of a popular culture section - but you'd need to do more research to write a good one. I imagine that the 747 could be said to have had a genuine effect on culture - the 'Jumbo' is almost iconic. Could it be said to have formed part of a revolution in air travel, and therefore travel habits?
I fixed part and Fnlayson fixed the rest. Ok, now? Archtransit (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The total numbers built are given in the lead, but I don't think they appear elsewhere in the article. Strictly they should, according to WP:LEAD. It would also be nice to know how many are in service, and how these numbers compare to other aircraft. Much of the information is in the variants section, but it could usefully be summarised somewhere.
Fixed. Archtransit (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My initial reaction was that the article is too long, but in fact I make it about 48k of text, which is fine, although I wouldn't want to see it get any longer. I suggest you look again at whether there is overlap between the 'Variants', 'Entry into service' and 'Further Development' sections, as they all cover the same ground to some extent. I wonder if Eis and FD can be re-focussed more on the 747s use from 1969 - 2007, who used it, what it was used for, how it was perceived, was it profitable, influential etc. and leave the technical stuff to the variants section.
Good point. The references take a lot of kb in the source code. The text only, minus the infoboxes and photos is not too much larger than 50 kb. Looking at another FAC from several months ago (doing my research!), I see an extremely heated argument about length (which led to edit warring and blocking!) and that article is longer.
As far as I remember 50k is still supposed to be the upper limit, although people measure it in different ways. I'm pretty sure refs and tables are not supposed to be included. 4u1e (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. It's a good article, sensibly structured with lots of information, but I think there are a lot of things you can tweak to improve it further. Hope my comments are useful - take what you want from them. Where I've been unclear, please contact me and I will endeavour to explain myself. I would be interested to know at some point whether the kind of points I've made are the sort of thing that are useful to you, so feel free to let me have your (honest!) opinions on that too. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've struck out those I'm sure are dealt with. Some of those I haven't struck out may also be OK, but I wasn't able to check quickly. I've listed the points I'm still worried about at the FAC. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Engine models in spec table

The Boeing spec pages and airport list the GE CF6-45A2 for the -100 (available option I guess). With these sourced listed as table references, there needs to reference(s) for data removed in some form. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Did we catch Boeing with an error? They may have listed the CF6 because they offered it. However, nobody ordered it. How about a footnote if we do list it? I can see a point for listing it and not listing it. Archtransit (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Boeing lists the available engine options. Not worth their time to update airport report to unlist ones not chosen. A footnote after engine or another reference in the Sources line should be fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

References

So that we would fix references differently and have to redo work, we should agree on the reference style. So far, I think we do agree with minor details.

1. Is it retrieved 2007-12-10 or Retrieved 2007-12-10? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Web_sites_and_articles_.28not_from_periodicals.29 uses a capital "R". (I used capital R then changed to small r, copying my esteemed colleague)

2. We do seem to agree on this format, which is easy to type and informative. <ref>[http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_milestones.html Program Milestones], The Boeing Company, Retrieved 2007-12-11</ref> Which appears like this (number 7, ignore the others): [7] References

  1. ^ Norris 1997, p. 63.
  2. ^ http://press.jal.co.jp/en/release/200702/000639.html
  3. ^ http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=userdefinedselection.cfm&pageid=m15527
  4. ^ http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1995/news.release.951013-a.html
  5. ^ http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1995/news.release.951013-a.html
  6. ^ http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/august/i_iw2.html
  7. ^ Program Milestones, The Boeing Company, Retrieved 2007-12-11
  • Alright. It just doesn't seem like a word that should be capitalized, since Retrieved (& Accessed) aren't names like author or publisher. Oh well, we'd better use what the policy page suggests for consistency. The Retrieved ones have all been been cap'ed. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% but that's the way it is. Will work on refs tomorrow.Archtransit (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Informal Peer Review

Well I've been reading through, I've deliberately not changed anything yet (or read the other informal peer review 1st, hopefully I'll spot some different things). Here's my comments:

- long haul - can this have a link? I'm not sure this is simple to understand for a non-English reader and I think the very start of an article should ease you in gently.

- 2 mentions of 'widebody commercial airliner' in 1st paragraph. can this be re-written so it is only mentioned once?

- 'Known for its impressive size' - NPOV? Why not just say that it is a large plane?

- double decker - this should link to Double-deck aircraft.

Fixed (credit to someone else) Archtransit (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

- Link 'three class' to Travel class.

Fixed (credit should be given to someone else!) Archtransit (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

- Can the intro paragraph say something about the relative physical size of the 747 compared to other airliners when it was built (and maybe now).

- What is CX-HLS?

- Is this the C5 Galaxy? Can we have a link at the 1st occurance?

  • C-5 was the Lockheed design.

- 'Ultimately, the Boeing proposals selected for the high winged CX-HLS and the low winged 747 were completely different designs' - who was the 747 proposal made to? Maybe I don't understand something here but was there an internal competition in Boeing with them wanting to make an airliner and several proposals being put forward for this, one of which was based on an earlier design for a military transport? Maybe this whole paragraph could be reworded to make it clearer

- Does it matter who Juan Trippe was talking to when he said his quote? Or is the quote from Stamper's memory?

The way I initially read it was that Stamper was interviewing Trippe. I'm probably being stupid! JMiall₰ 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

- I'm having difficulty visualising the 'escape harness attached to a reel' could we have more description or a picture?

- why was it 'a new standard of air travel' - the description prior to this makes it sound quite poor!

- Do we need the list of airlines that bought 747s in the 1st year or can this be summarised?

- 'resulting several airlines' - resulting in

  • Fixed

- 'point-to-point international service' - services?

- 'higher gross weight -100B' - OK so the plane and all the stuff in it weigh more but I assume this is a plane designed to carry more weight not just a heavier plane body?

- 'Workforce experience' or Workforce inexperience?

- Why is "747 Advanced" in quotes the 1st time?

- What is a 'clean-sheet airliner'? One not based on any previous designs?

- 'depending on variant'?

- link to Saudi Arabian Airlines on their 1st mention (and all the other unlinked airlines)

- can the 1st mention of nmi have a link

- link MTOW

- Fowler flap needs explaining or linking

- link Type certificate

- 'two opposing gear' - gears

Fixed. Archtransit (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Uh, the wording before that and the sentence before that too explained it. Opposing is needed in the wording. It is not design to land with 2 main landing gear out on one side. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

- is it necessary to list who owns 17 of the 747SPs? This also applies to all the other types. I don't know what criteria to apply here but it is to be expected that governments and airlines would own planes. Maybe only particularly notable owners should be mentioned.

- Why bypass Anchorage? Did the increased range mean they could just stop further on because Anchorage is not a nice airport or that they didn't need to stop at all?

- 'do not include winglets, but those can be retrofitted' --> 'does not include winglets, but these can be retrofitted'

- 'standard pallets' - there are loads of different pallet sizes. whose standard?

I still don't get this. If you look at pallet you'll see that there are lots of different 'standard' pallet sizes (although they are all vaguely the same size). Also the 1st ref for this paragraph doesn't seem to work. JMiall₰ 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think standard containers, such as the LD-3 are what it being referred. These standard containers can be off loaded a 747 and put on a connecting flight on another cargo aircraft. Belly cargo on the MD-80 is non-standardized. The standard container sizes don't fit. I am replacing the word with container as this is the industry used term. Archtransit (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

- link Civil Reserve Airlift Fleet

- linking the 1st ft in the table is a little late! This also applies to some of the other units.

- could the table be made a little less grey and dull?

- 'Takeoff run at MTOW' - is this amount of runway needed?

- The drag section seems slightly brief. I would recommend (if it is going to be included at all) linking directly to Drag equation, using the LaTeX form of the equation there, mentioning what units drag is in, explaining what v and rho are and saying why this is notable. Does a 747 have high or low drag compared to other planes?

- The '747 Deliveries' has no explanation. These could be deliveries made using 747s for all the reader knows.

  • Seems to be jargon that is well accepted, even in non-aviation publications, like the local newspaper business section. The citation used also offers some explanation (orders and deliveries)Archtransit (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

- I don't think a 747 that is in a museum is inherently worth mentioning unless it is famous for something else

Not really. WP:NOT#TRAVEL is probably the right guideline to look at. JMiall₰ 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Listing Survivors or XYZ aircraft on display is usually done in a separate section per Wikipedia:Air/PC. The point is only to tell the fate of the individual notable aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

- what is a 'hull-loss occurrence'? How do you lose a whole hull?

- 'The Tenerife disaster' - how should we know what this is?

- ATC needs a link or just expanding

- I would recommend moving 'Notable incidents' to a new page called List of 747 Crashes or something similar and summarising this article in a paragraph or 2 without using bullet points

- 'Facts and Figures' needs writing into the main article as it is just a trivia section in disguise.

  • It is sort of a trivia and pop culture section. Everything has been moved to earlier in article that can be and blanket removal of section is counter to WP:TRIVIA. There's no better place to put the El Al flight with 1,087 passengers and it is worth keeping somewhere, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've suggested above that you pair it with a mention elsewhere of the maximum capacity of the aircraft: 'The 747-XYZ has the greatest planned passenger capacity of any variant at 458 passengers - although an El Al flight etc etc' (Numbers made up!) See what I mean? 4u1e (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Rather than just doing it and discussing later, how about the following proposal? Follow the above recommendation. As far as the 747 in films, could this be put in the footnotes under the intro where the 747 is one of the most recognized aircraft? I generally try to minimize text in the notes sections because it's too easy to use that for trivia or hiding negative information. However, we could say The 747 also has appeared as a film location in numerous productions such as the Airport series of disaster films, Snakes on a Plane, Air Force One, Turbulence and Executive Decision. Archtransit (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's all for now. I have not checked that the references support the statements they follow but it does seem to be well referenced and a generally pretty good article. I would like to see an 'xyz in popular culture' section even though normally these are the worst part of an article, in this case the 747 has certainly become famous enough to deserve one. Also where does the name 'Jumbo Jet' come from? JMiall₰ 20:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pan Am

In the Background and design phase it states that Juan Trippe, president of its most loyal airline customer Pan Am - not sure that most loyal is correct as Pan Am had bought from other companies including the Douglas DC-8. I could be WP:BOLD and change it president of an important Boeing customer Pan Am but just want to check opinions first. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox airline users

I see that there are some changes to this box. I propose reaching an understanding over which operators are included. Possibilities include: 1) The top 4 airlines that Boeing lists as taking deliveries of the 747. 2) The top 4 airlines according to number of 747 currently in their fleet.

1 is easy to source. 2 is more difficult. 2 is complicated by the fact that some airlines operate many used 747. For example, UPS only ordered 3 747 from Boeing. They have many used 747's (747F, 747SF, etc.)

Advice? Archtransit (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it supposed to be the top 4 operators based on how many the airlines currently have. Airliners get sold to other airliners and such a fair bit, so original orders aren't a good indicator. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The Caravelle was taken out of service so that eventually the largest operator was an airline in Gabon! If policy is made for all aviation articles, choosing the largest operator may create an unintended result. However, we're just trying to decide on the 747 article. The way it is now is ok with me for now. Archtransit (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC in progress

As a result of much improvement in the article and after discussion with another editor who edits this article a lot, I'm nominating this article for FA. It is already an A class article, the step below FA. Since becoming A class, it has improved substantially. Wouldn't it be nice if this article were an FA and, as a result, featured on the main page for FA's at the 40th anniversary of the first 747 flight (2008)? Archtransit (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Technically, A-class takes a review within the project (WP:Aviation here). It is on that level, I think (probably what you mean). Hopefully we're close and there won't be a lot of "pain" involved. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes added to the Reference section

An editor has moved some text to the Reference section so this section now has a footnote. This is ok with me. However, we should be mindful not to transfer too much text to the footnotes. We should also never move text (especially objectionable or negative information) to the footnotes to hide it from readers. Archtransit (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to eliminate images

There is a suggestion in [3] to limit the number of images to only pertinent images. To me, most of them seem logical. If one is to be deleted, I think the UA 747 at DEN should be. Archtransit (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no hard-and-fast rule over the number of images to be used to illustrate an article. In the case of a major article, such as this, usually ten images suffice but having 17 images is still acceptable. One way to reduce the total number is to eliminate any redundant photographs; we have two images of the prototype series for example, three images of foreign users, etc. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
The UA 747-400 at DEN image has been removed. Rationale: already has a 747-400 image. I welcome further discussion if you think this choice is not good. Archtransit (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

introductory paragraphs

Two people have suggested an additional introductory paragraph. I've split a paragraph that had 2 subtopics into two to partially address this. On the other hand, it has been noted that the article is long and shouldn't get longer. Any suggestions for the introduction might be noted here. More discussion may be needed for the introduction compared to text later in the article because of the importance given to the beginning.

I think that the splitting of the paragraph may have addressed this concern, at least partially.Archtransit (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC and References

I notice this is a FAC, and as references is one of my specialties, I took a look at it after seeing a note on someone's talk page about the reference section. It should be noted that Amazon.com is not a reliable source, and cannot be used, the customer reviews are used for reference #5 to verify information, this will need to be changed to a reliable source. Also, source #57, "movie ramblings" is not a reliable source, as it is a personal website of someone's own opinions. "Welcome to movie ramblings, where I attempt to analyse a movie in my own opinionated manner." Reference #173 is a foreign language site that appears to be a blog of some sort, and does not seem to be a reliable source, but if it is, then the language needs to be added to the reference. The only other questionable source I saw was the flightsim.com site, but that might be overlooked given the context.

Inserted comment: #173 is a photo of the plane at a museum. It's in a foreign language because it's in a foreign country. The amazon.com reference simply shows that the 747 is called "jumbo jet" and the book is written by the past head of the 747 program. If one doesn't like it, the reference can be deleted as there is another one listed for the same fact. Archtransit (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All that being said, I think this article would benefit from the placement of all the refs into templates for standardization, with each having an author, publisher, URL, title, access date, and date of publication. I would be willing to undertake this endeavor, and I have done it multiple times before with a number of articles. Two examples: Lightning: before, and after, and University of California, Santa Barbara: before, and after. Naturally, such an undertaking would require time, so it would need to be done when nobody else is working on the article, which is why I suggest it here first. I think that this would go a long way towards making the reference section really stand out as an excellent standard, as well as making the references much easier to understand for the reader. I'll check back tomorrow to check this thread. Have a great day! Ariel♥Gold 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixing of these references is a high priority (or should be). Reference 57 is a reliable reference to confirm that a 747 was part of the plot of the film. The use of reference templates was discussed at great length and it was decided not to use it. Part of the reason might be because others thought it made editing (and article improvement) difficult given the large number of references, many of them mid-sentence. Template use is not a requirement as we checked during a lengthy discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archtransit (talk • contribs) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
While I realize the templates are in no way required, I do think that in this article, they would be exceedingly helpful to the reader, especially readers who are not at all familiar with aviation. Of course, that's only my opinion, and I do understand the issue of difficulty with editing, but since the article is now nearly fully developed, it might be worth reconsidering for the Featured step. I'm sure it wouldn't make or break a FAC, but it is certainly a nice thing to have done with such a great article. Ariel♥Gold 18:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that in no way, was my comment on the this talk page, nor on Archtransit's page meant as any kind of insult or slight, but they seem to have been taken that way, so my apologies. I was looking for a FAC that could use some help, and I guess that my comments were read in a way I did not at all intend. My apologies, and good luck with the FAC. Ariel♥Gold 18:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Entry into service - last paragraph

Shouldn't this be moved to become the first para of Further developments? --JCG33 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

From the initial 747-100 model, Boeing developed the higher gross weight -100B variant and higher passenger capacity -100SR (Short Range) variant.[68] (Increased maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) can allow an aircraft to carry more fuel and have longer range.[69]) The -200 model followed, entering service in 1971. It featured more powerful engines and higher gross weight. Passenger, freighter and combination passenger/freighter versions were produced.[68] The shortened 747SP (Special Performance) with a longer range was also developed in the mid-1970s.[70]

This paragraph? Suggestion looks fine to me. Are we talking about different paragraph? Archtransit (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry for removal

If you put the following remarks, sorry for taking them out.

  • Entry into service section, City of Everett prototype removed. It's not related to the 747 christening by Pan Am. The City of Everett 747 is also listed near the end of the article under museums. Archtransit (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Continental sold its 747 soon afterwards. Replaced with Delta. Reason: citation for DL provided, none on CO found. Also DL sold its 747 starting in 1974, just after the oil embargo, which suits the idea better. CO had some PeoplExpress 747 well into the 1980's. Archtransit (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bzuk was right about my accidentally deleting the American First Lady link, and that was a good catch. I should explain that my concern was the bumping together of multiple wikilinks. Visually they are not separated, and this makes it hard for a reader to instantly see where one link stops and another begins. Re-casting the First Lady sentence to visually separate the links would be a good idea. I have noticed some other examples of this link bumping in the article. For example, in the "Entry into service" section, McDonnell Douglas and DC-10 are bumped and linked. You could drop the McDonnell Douglas link to fix this, but you might prefer to re-cast the sentence. Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Considered?

In the "Further developments section, a sentence reads: "Two Airbus customers signed additional 747-8 orders;[82][83] two customers cancelled their A380 orders, and several launch customers deferred delivery or considered switching to the 747-8 and 777F aircraft." The word "considered" is a bit odd because it's not clear what effect that would have on actual orders. Maybe "or switched" would be better, if factual. Or maybe the sentence could end after the word "delivery." I'll leave this one for you to decide. Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting done

I've worked my way through the whole article and made many changes, virtually all small. If I accidenally distorted the sense of the content in any place, please revert the change. This is a complicated article, and it's extremely unlikely that other editors will find nothing to improve. I'd suggest that you find at least one other editor or proofreader to go through everything again to get the article as polished as possible. Finetooth (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_747/Archive_2&oldid=1136300073"