Wikipedia:Peer review/Boeing 777/archive1

Boeing 777

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to solicit additional opinion before nominating Boeing 777 for FA review.

Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nimbus227

I've just had a very quick look as I am steering an article through the FA process at the moment. If you go into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce Merlin/archive1 you will see a toolbox on the right. If you type in 'Boeing 777' into the box at the top of each tool page you will see that there is still some work to do.

• First class links to a DAB page, go for First class (aviation).
• A couple of the external reference links are dead.
• There is no alt text for any of the images (see WP:ALT).

I think that the operators section should be above 'specs' per WP:AIR/PC. The specifications section is non-standard for the project, whether this will have any effect at FA I don't know. Personally I would pick one variant/model and use Template:Aircraft specifications with the table kept below under a sub-header of 'Variant specifications' or something like that. I think there might be some overlinking in the article, Rolls-Royce Trent 800 is linked three times in paragraphs that are close to each other. Good luck, it's a long road!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

All good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nimbus for your speedy reply and helpful suggestions. SynergyStar (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it's a big article, I hope that you have some help! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also Nimbus. Were the dead links in the External links section or in references? All the links in the EL worked within the last hour. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the 'External links' tool only checks links used as refs, ref # 66 (Jane's Air France order) is showing as dead since June and ref # 160 (AAIB report) is showing as 'request error 400' for me. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just tried them through the article, the Jane's link opens a Jane's page that says that the page cannot be found but the AAIB link opens fine. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just finished adding alt text, replacing disambig links, moving the sections per WP:AIR/PC, also replacing the Jane's reference. SynergyStar (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also replaced Trent 800 wikilinks, etc., and replaced some additional reflinks. Not sure about the specs table; have also looked at the autoreviewer info. Thanks again. SynergyStar (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work, I notice that the Boeing 747 which is a featured article only uses a table for specs, this misses out some parameters from the template and adds new ones. My only concern with this way of doing it is that editors may well use the featured articles as benchmarks, I used to until I saw the different standards applied to the aircraft FAs. Hope that some more editors drop by here. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of a specs table is not limited to Featured or Good Articles and has been in use for a while. There are many jet airliner articles with specs in table form instead of a specs template (all the Boeing 7X7 articles, all Airbus airlines since A300, all Douglas/McDonnell Douglas jets, and several by Bombardier, Embraer, etc). It would be better to discuss this at WT:Air than here, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there are no real issues in what the Automate peer reviewer lists now. We already are using standard abbreviations and 737NG is correct. It also mentions that the Table of Contents is too long, which I don't think is major. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, the Table of Contents has been trimmed. SynergyStar (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)