Talk:Four-engined jet aircraft

Four-engined jet aircraft received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Quadjets

The term "quadjet" is used occasionally. For example it appeared in Flight just four times up to 2004.[1] Nor is Forbes beyond using the term.[2] The question is, should Wikipedia? It is used a fair bit in other articles, but WP:OTHER makes it clear that this sets no precedent. May I suggest that we deprecate it in favour of "four-engined jet" or similar, except in instances where it has an evident advantage? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you as far as the whole article is concerned. However, per WP:R#PLA, we do need to mention it in the Lead as an alternative name. It's used enough informally that including it as a bolded name is warranted. The problem as I see it is that "quadjet" is much easier to write and say than "four-engined jet aircraft", and replacing every use of "quadjet" in the article may leave some clumsy sentences. In most case, the sentences may need to be completely rewritten so as not to sound stilted. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I worked over a few and it is surprisingly easy. I begin to get the impression that some quadjet fanboi has been trying to insert the word as often as possible. However the term is also widely used in the context of jetskis, cleaning systems, butane torches and who knows what all else. Not something we want to use in any ambiguous context, and not something we want to use any more than necessary. A technical niggle: if we use it in the lead then we should cite that usage in the main text somewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rewriting for clarity isn't my best editing skill, so perhaps it seemed more difficult to me. :) As for citing its use, one of the FlightGlobal mentions might suffice. I was surprised to see how many non-aircraft uses of "quadjet" there were. If these uses are covered in relevant WP articles, a DAB page at Quadjet or Quadjet (disambiguation) might be warranted. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other

This seems to be useful information with small mistakes CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]