Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 18 March 2011 [1].

Airbus A330

[edit]

Airbus A330 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 05:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article has undergone the expansion and improvements necessary for Featured Article status. During the last 2 months, I have, with help from other Wikipedians, expanded the article to its current size. Meanwhile, I've rewritten existing text, eliminated unreferenced claims, and added sources to those lacking them. I truly hope and believe that this article could obtain Featured Article status, supplementing existing aviation-related FA articles such as Boeing 747 and Boeing 777. So, if you don't mind, please post some comments below and help me out with making this article worth reading for everybody. Any problem can be ironed out during the FAC process. Thanks --Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 05:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • "Airlines were not satisfied with a compromised aircraft, so Airbus decided to proceed with an entirely new aircraft, the Airbus A350XWB." - source?
  • Done
  • "The A330-200 is also available as an ultra-long range corporate jet by Airbus Executive and Private Aviation. The Boeing equivalent is currently the Boeing 767-300ER—and to a lesser extent, the 767-400ER—and in the future, will be the 787-8." - source?
  • Removed
  • Missing bibliographic information for Eden 2008
  • All information is provided under "Bibliography".
  • There is no Eden 2008 under Bibliography
  • Done. Sorry, I put in the wrong edition and isbn.
  • Jackson 2008, Recent developments, Reed 1992 are not cited
Like before, ll information is provided under "Bibliography".
Yes, but these sources don't appear in any footnotes
  • I was planning to use Reed 1992, but found it could be covered by other sources. Placed between <!-- -->. Sorry
  • Multiple inconsistencies in reference format and content (Rechecked 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC), not fixed)
  • All are consistent. If not, which one?
  • Many are inconsistent. For example, airbus.com is alternately referred to as Airbus S.A.S., airbus.com and simply Airbus
  • Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
  • There are 8 PDFs, two of them are used more than once, and they're both single-page articles.
  • Even the ones used only once need page number(s)
  • Done
  • Done
  • Make sure you identify the dollar country (for example, US$) in cases where it's unclear
  • Done
  • Use a consistent date format
Can you be more specific?
Date ranges should use ndashes in references, check for typos ("201 1"?)
  • Done.
What's wrong with them? They're all credible?
Please explain your reasoning with reference to WP:RS and related guidelines, or provide a previous discussion at FAC or RS/N where they were accepted as credible
I agree with Nikiemaria, they don't meet WP:RS. I've formalised the pprune.org one (You should cite to the reliable source, not people talking about the reliable source, hence if the real newsstory comes from Bloomberg News, as in this case, they're the Publisher, not Pprune. I'll work on some others, but this is going to be a pain.) You should always to apply the most professional, most respectable publisher-material when there's a choice, any hint of unprofessionalism isn't tolerated in Featured Articles, the absolute pinnicle of quality on Wikipedia has very high standards. Kyteto (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the solution is to dump airliners.net and use the official Airbus pages. It is a change I've had to make to dozens of pages I've overhauled, replacing informal refs with formal ones containing the same information, because they're simply not allowed as citations in FA class articles under the policy of WP: Reliable Sources. The rules on External Links are less stringent, as they're not backing up any facts (it is basically the difference between trying to prove a fact in the article, and including a good followup article on the subject outside ow Wikipedia, one's evidence and needs to be water-tight, one doesn't have to be as it isn't making a case.) Kyteto (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no solid reason for the issue with the airliners.net pages. The airliners.net aircraft pages are copied with permission from The International Directory of Civil Aircraft ISBN 1875671528 or an older edition of it. The original source is clearly WP:RS and so should these pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added original source
I'll switch out to that then, the accuracy of the content to formal sources doesn't matter at WP:RS, if somebody checking the information needs to double-check the cites to see if they're accurate, there are problems (hence why it is best to simply cite directly from the blokes you can actually trust at their word). Content being right or wrong factually doesn't matter, it is the credentials of the publisher that's the issue. Kyteto (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defence Review is actually an organisation which provides news and coverage on defence matters.
  • I've replaced source no.4 with a press release from Boeing following their appeal.
I had already removed it as it was a unneeded duplicate ref, but because the commenter has their underwear in a bunch about the use of striking, there was no quick-and-easy way to demonstrate it had been dealt with, so exactly as my criticism, it caused unnecessary confusion to not strike it. Kyteto (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make a note of your change, then. The "no striking other peoples' comments" is not my rule, but that of FAC itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All web citations need publishers
  • They all have one.
  • But you actually need to say what it is. For example, refs 96 and 97 have no publisher listed
  • Done
Per the instructions at the top of the FAC page, please don't strike comments made by reviewers. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done

Neutral, leaning oppose - most of the above concerns have been adequately addressed. However, reference formatting and the MoS remain issues. I'm also concerned with the prose quality in this article, and suggest a thorough copy-edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - please bear in mind I'm reviewing this from a completely "never reviewed an airliner" perspective, and this is a quick run through the whole article...

  • Is "large-capacity" meaningful? It's not linked.
  • It's self-explanatory. Doesn't need to be linked, not ecyclopediac.
  • "although the -200F can be powered by either of the two latter engines." seems a little high-detail for the lead?
  • Removed
  • Don't like linking "First flown", why not just be plain about it and say "Its maiden flight..."?
  • Removed link.
  • "but more popular" I guess popular needs context, it sold more? It was more enjoyable to passengers??
  • The sentence starts with "Due to dwindling sales", so in this case, it's about sales.
  • It's now March, can you update the lead "as of..."?
  • Done
  • "See also: Airbus A340#Development" can't you pipe link that to avoid a nasty #?
  • Done
  • long term -> hyphenate?
  • Done
  • "the revolutionary family of airliners later known as the Airbus A320, " is "the revolutionary family" neutral in tone? and any reason for Airbus A320 to be in italics?
  • how's revolutionary not neutral?
  • Done
  • "The B9 was essentially a lengthened..." what does "essentially" add to this sentence?
  • It means the B9 was a simply stretch.
  • Odd you link range (on its own) well after, say, long-range.
  • Fixed
  • Not sure a non-expert knows what a "quadjet" is.
  • Explained
  • B11 in italics. I don't see why. (et seq).
  • Because the name was changed (unless you want to bolden it). Removed
  • Not sure you need to link wing here.
  • Removed
  • "one technical advantage, the TA11's outboard " comma is an odd delineator here, perhaps a semi-colon, or a spaced en-dash.
  • Done
  • In the quote "...They liked" if that ellipsis indicates missing text but the next sentence starts with a capital T then I suspect there should be a space before the They...
  • Is this it?
  • "The A330 and A340 adopted the A320 flight deck of the A320 (pictured)..." why link A320 on the second mention in this caption?
  • Removed
  • You use "nmi" without explaining or linking the first time round.
  • Fixed
  • Are you deliberately overlinking? e.g. you link "fly-by-wire" in two consecutive sections, and only abbreviate it in the second?
  • Sometimes I don't keep track of the words I linked. Fixed
  • "Airbus decided that from the start, the A330 would be powered..." odd English, why not "from the start that the A330..."?
  • Fixed
  • " original requirement for 267 to 289 kN (60,000 to 65,000 lbf) (a measure of engine output)" clumsy, why not "original requirement from an engine output of ...."?
  • Removed
  • "Airbus's partners" pretty sure I've seen "Airbus'" elsewhere. Would recommend internal consistency.
  • Done
  • There's a mixture of primary measurements, i.e. either Imperial converted to metric or vice-versa. I guess I'd have expected consistency throughout.
  • Done
  • "and 5 percent on time." How do you quantify this?
  • Could you clarify?
  • "British Aerospace gladly accepted £450 " -> "gladly accepted"? A little POV.
  • Fixed
  • "In 1989, Asian carrier Cathay Pacific ordered nine A330s, later increased to 11.[32]" I believe MOS says comparable amounts can be represented similarly, so "eleven" would be fine.
  • Fixed
  • I know you have a "see also" but worth linking "crashed" to the same article in the first sentence, last paragraph of that section.
  • Fixed
  • "world's second largest " second-largest.
  • Fixed
  • "postponed by delamination to the composite materials." who discovered that? Was it from reports from other airlines?
  • Source doesn't say who discovered it. Does it matter? The point is deliveries were late because of production problems.
  • "230 t (510,000 lb)" vs "233.0 t (514,000 lb)[66]" - missing period, but also, no need for that ".0".
  • Removed
  • "virtually identical " not sure this is encyclopedic, perhaps "similar"?
  • "Similar" is not indicative of how closely they resemble.
  • " the wing also has2.74 m (9 ft 0 in) winglet, " something not right here.
  • Fixed
  • You quote "t/c" but don't clearly explain what it is.
Thickness/cord. Done
  • "manufactured by British Aerospace (BAe)" you've already abbreviated this...
  • Fixed
  • I've lost count of the number of times you link "fly-by-wire"...
  • Fixed
  • "and in the future, will be the Boeing 787 Dreamliner." ref for this claim is needed.
  • "all of which are ETOPS-180 min rated. and uses the Honeywell " odd sentence. I guess it should be something like "all of which are ETOPS-180 minute rated and use the Honeywell..."?
  • Fixed
  • "See also: Airbus A350" why is that at the bottom of the "A330-200Lite" section?
  • It's a follow on from that section. Moved.
  • Why isn't the orders/deliveries table in chronological order per all chronological tables?
  • What does italics mean in the table?
  • The year is yet to finish.
  • Operators section says 760 were in service, everything else says 765 were in service/delivered. What's the difference?
765 delivered', 760 in service. Also
  • After reading it, I still don't get how to make it accessible.
  • Engines table doesn't sort correctly in the Date... column.
  • Done
  • Lots of repeated periods in the references (due to use of templates, e.g. "Airbus S.A.S.. Retrieved 1 ..."
  • Done
  • Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Numerous problems that I can see. There is a gentle mix of US/Commonwealth terms used throughout (model/variant, landing gear/undercarriage etc.), should be one form or the other per WP:ENGVAR. Extra words/phrases could usefully be removed.

  • Hatnotes - Not sure that these are required, I can't see the possible confusion between this aircraft and a 1920s biplane at least, if it stays 'plane' should be changed to the project accepted term 'aircraft'.
  • Incorporate both hatnotes into one.
  • Lead - First paragraph mixes unit priority (mentioned by the previous reviewer), Airbus give Metric/SI units, these should be used first then converted to Imperial or US units (whichever is chosen for the conversions). This problem runs throughout the article including the specification table.
  • Fixed
Second paragraph; Airbus began by studying derivatives of its A300 in the 1970s, why not Airbus began studying derivatives of its A300 in the 1970s? The aircraft is the first Airbus airliner to offer a choice of three engine types, change to past tense perhaps as this feature/option is 20 years old now? The three engine types are linked but the first does not include the manufacturer (but does include the precise variant), the second links the generic type and not the variant, and the last links to the manufacturer, type and variant. If I wrote this I would use General Electric CF6, Pratt & Whitney PW4000 and Rolls-Royce Trent. The precise variants can be refined later in the relevant sections.
  • Fixed
Third paragraph; To counter the A330? Realising that there is an apparent sales war between Boeing and Airbus a more neutral term might be offered as a market alternative? Why mention the A350?
  • Fixed
  • Background - Revolutionary does sound NNPOV, innovative might be a more neutral word. Simultaneously working on two projects at once. That's what simultaneously means doesn't it?!! Could be reworded. The Germans, which Germans? Percent = %? Occurs many times in the article. Therefore not needed. Wing and airframe? The term airframe includes the wing.
Done
  • Design effort - Fin is linked but is not the best link, it is linked correctly later to vertical stabilizer which would need to be piped to fin if you want to retain the Commonwealth term. Franz-Josef Strauss is hyphenated, according to our article and the German article it should not be.
  • Fixed
  • I note from recent edit summaries that British English is being applied, vertical stabilizer and landing gear are US terms. To avoid future confusion a template can be added to the talk page for the form of English used (realising that not all editors go to the talk page but it helps), this is the British English template: {{British-English}}.
  • Done
  • Entry into service - Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Performance Standards (ETOPS), surely the term should be linked not the abbreviation?
  • It's similar to National Aeronautics and Space Administration, people link and refer to it as NASA.
  • Done
  • Further development - A329 and A330M10 should not be italicised unless they were individual aircraft. Aircraft itself? Just aircraft perhaps? On the right-hand main landing gear well would normally be phrased in the right-hand main landing gear well. A resigned system, 'redesigned' I would think. The last paragraph on production seems misplaced, would be better under the header of 'Orders and deliveries'. A large portion of this section is related to safety problems although you could say that fixing the problems is 'further development', might be better moved to a new 'safety record' section along with the accidents that were directly related to this aircraft type.
  • Even though the subheading says "Further development", it doesn't explicitly have to 100% be about further developments.
  • It's your call.
  • Design - The brake unit image is displacing the section header in my browser (Firefox), the wikilink is to 'carbon brake' but it just links to brake, misleading. On the ground, the two four-bogie Messier-Dowty-built main landing gear supports a maximum ramp weight of... Grammar doesn't seem quite right, 'support' perhaps? What is 'maximum ramp weight'?
  • Grammar is still not right there and the US term landing gear has been used.
  • Airframe and wing - this heading is a misnomer, the term airframe includes wing structure. Thickness/Chord ratio is not explained, a wikilink to chord (aircraft) could be added. Chord is misspelt 'cord' at the second instance. Shouldn't that be a 'low' ratio? 'Design' is repeated three times in the last sentence of the first paragraph. The second paragraph mostly repeats the information in the first. The higher the aspect ratio, the greater the aerodynamic efficiency needs a source. The A330, like its wing.., the wing is part of the airframe. There is another instance of fin linking to the wrong article.
  • Variants - Described as 'models' in other places, is the ICAO code box necessary or encyclopaedic? A revised nose landing gear layout. The same A330-200 undercarriage is used a mixture of terms (US/Commonwealth) and confusing, 'undercarriage legs' perhaps?
Undercarriage are legs. ICAO code box, yes. Fixed
A330-300, engine linking inconsistency, first part linked, second two not linked. The closest Boeing competitors are the Boeing 777-200 and, the now-out-of-production McDonnell Douglas MD-11., needs a source. A330-300HGW; Who was seeking airliner with a range..., 'airliners' probably, or 'an airliner type'? A330-500; aft the wing, 'aft of the wing', allows for range, 'allows for a range'. What happened to the -500 project? Military variants; refueling is US spelling, the majority of the article appears to use Commonwealth spellings.
  • Done
  • Operators - Is European airlines an airline? The source for the table/numbers is usually given under the header, we don't normally time stamp these tables, they get updated through article maintenance as should any other date related entries in the article.
  • Done
  • Accidents and incidents - At first it looks like a long list indicating an unsafe aircraft type until the reader sees that many of them are not related to the aircraft type (e.g. hijackings, dangerous air cargo, terrorist action, weather conditions etc.). It would be better to create a list of accidents involving the A330 or similar and leave the more relevant ones behind. Readers come to these airliner articles to see how safe the aircraft are, bearing in mind WP:NOTGUIDE this section should at least be balanced so that the true situation can be seen.
  • Removed.
  • Specifications - Again the source should be at the top under the header. This table is non-standard for the aircraft project, Template:Aircraft specifications should be used. Noting that other airliner articles use similar layouts they are also non-standard and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep using them for airliner articles. Unit priority problems as noted earlier (particularly the range figures). The source for the engine table would be more visible given directly under the header, various different formats are given for the same generic engine type, two are wikilinked, one is not.
Boeing 747 and 777 share this same layout. Template:Aircraft specifications are for simpler aircraft.
  • Where does it say that? Was Concorde a simple aircraft?
  • I just realised. Concorde has only one variant, where as Boeing 747, 777 and Airbus A340 has at least three. The template does not cater for three variants.
  • How many variants did the Vickers VC10 have? How many variants can we list in this table? As a plain wikitable it has no instructions for field completion. The convention is to pick one variant and list its specifications, this table misses out parameters. By being non-standard readers can't flick between articles and compare numbers. If specifications for more variants are needed they can be added to new variant articles, there are two A330 variant articles already.
  • Are all the specifications on the VC10 the same? Yes they are. The A330 has two passenger viriants, the -200 and -300, which have different capacities.
  • I don't want to get into a discussion on the VC10 but the variants differed in much the same way that the A330 variants do, it is shown more clearly here perhaps. Wikipedia aircraft articles are often 'number heavy', we should do what we can to minimise that problem (it gets noted by many non-aircraft oriented readers at reviews). The current specification table could appear to some as a sea of numbers but when it is looked at closely the differences are quite minor. An effective way to deal with this is to use the most common variant for the specifications and highlight the differences in the variants in their own sub-section, this has been done at the Sud Aviation Caravelle article. Another good reason to use the standard template is that it leaves room on the right for the placement of a 3-view drawing, (see de Havilland Comet) which is a widely accepted layout in the aircraft project. Is a 3-view drawing available for the A330? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, the Airbus A330 doesn't have a three-side view. Secondly, I don't know what the big fuss is about the table. Boeing 747 and 777 have specifications laid out this way. Thridly, Sud Aviation Caravelle#Variants still need a table to highlight the difference between the variants. Why not move that table down to #Specifications?

I will leave others to comment on the reliability or otherwise of the sources used. I am seeing an error with the Commons box, it is overlaying the navboxes and it is causing a problem with Template:Airbus A3xx timeline, shifting the text to the left.

Really, it can't find anything wrong on my browser, Explorer and Google Chrome.
  • Looks ok now, strange.
  • Images - Appear to be correctly licensed, some don't seem to have the full licensing template applied. As a style point it is better to have noses of aircraft and engines facing the text, I don't think there is a guideline on it but it is certainly a trick used with portraits of people in biographies. Most of the images here are right biased, some with aircraft facing to the right (away from the text), they could be moved to the left. Although the lead image is quite good I have seen possible better ones on Commons, there is quite a choice there now.
  • Done

Although my comments may seem overly picky we are trying to achieve 'Wikipedia's very best work' and I can see some basic problems here at the moment. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picky, yes, but as you say, we are trying to achieve "Wikipedia's very best work".

Wahh, nominating an article for FA is pretty daunting, given the amount of dedication involved. As I finish with one's comments, other Wikipedians come. However, this is going to train me as a copy-editor and a self-reviewer, isn't it. Keep the comments rolling in, the more, the better. Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 11:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good, still some grammar problems and the US/Brit language thing has to be fixed, should make it clear that I don't care personally which form it is in, just has to be one or the other throughout. It is convention to follow the form used by the article creator if an article has no strong national ties (European consortium aircraft don't) but looking at back it can't be ascertained what form was intended to be used.
I see that there was a peer review which is a very wise step before FAC but it was only open for seven days and only one editor had a chance to look at it. There's no set time for a peer review to be open but I would have left it open much longer myself, there is no deadline! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Airbus_A330/archive1&oldid=1033838221"