Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive3

TCO comments/questions (in progress)

Infobox

(looked fine)

Lead

1. "medium- to long-range" could we pick one of these? Or perhaps cut entirely (as you mention range later?) It's just that this first sentence reads a little listy, like you are squezing too many qualifiers and adjectives into the first sentence.

The reason "medium- to long-range" is used because there are many A330 variants. The A330-200 is capable of long-range flights, but, while the A330-300 carries a big payload, it can't get that payload really far. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. I'm not a fan of linking well known units like kilometres.

3. Fix the converts so both units are abbreviated or both spelled out. (Check the whole article).

I think the unit handling is ok as it is, having successfully nominated two 'number heavy' aviation articles I remember that the guidance was to link the units at first instance (spelling them out in full but the converted units should be abbreviated!) then after that they can all be abbreviated, it does make the leads look very blue though! 'Long range' would get my vote, go for what it can do as a maximum. I think there might be some range/payload trade-offs coming in there that should be (are?) mentioned later. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Second para does a good job explaining the common origins of the 330 and 340. but you need a sentence saying how they differed.

5. Add a sentence (can not be a phrase as sentence before already very long) mentioning the controversy on the KC aircraft. this ois a big deal in the states (major market for the company, and for Wiki for readers). Gets us to something more interesting than specs for wing loading. ;)

6. Overall, I like the lead!

Development

(Spanbreakeer is fine. See also is fine)

Background

7. The background and design effort feels a little confusing to me. I wonder if we could slim background down a little. When I read it, I kept wondering when we would get to the A330...felt like I wasn't sure where the story was heading. The other alternative is to add some form of topic sentence(s) that explain a bit more why we need to learn so much about the A300 variants to understand the A330.

8. Also, I think you've cleaned it up some, but there was (before) some duplicate content from the 340. that is no problem per se. But my worry was a bit more that we had not really looked at the content to make sure that it explained the 330. Again, I think it's cleaned up...but please look at this issue once over with fresh eyes. Por favor.

9. Also there are just a LOT of numbers and letters. TA-9, etc. Maybe if we drew some tim-line or perhaps a flow diagram of versions, that would help make sense of it all (display large, centered). It would also take away one of my concerns about all the visuals being pictures of planes (we need some variety in type of image).

10. How did the "commonness" of the wing structure lead to reduced bending moment? That feels like simply an aspect of the wing or weight or placement of the engines, really. But not an aspect of "commonness". Get me?

11. the whole section and then ending with the quote is just hard to see where we are going to. It sorta reads as if they would build a quad, no? I wonder if this is a remnant of re-using content. Take a look at it in terms of it telling OUR story. At a minimum, feel we are too much in suspense...

Design effort

12. I keep reading and wondering if the TA9 will become the A330, but I'm still in suspense...

13. How about adding the picture of the variable camber wing into this article. Can add a little caption that says it was considered and rejected. It's kind of cool and it gives us some respite from similar looking photographic images of planes.

Done, by yourself. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14. "Airbus decided from the start that the A330 would be offered.." This para starts talking about the A330, but we still don't know if it is the TA9 (don't find out until last para). Tell us up front please. makes the letter number soup mean something earlier. :)

I think it's essential to provide a comprehensive history. If you think about it, the A330's history is not that long, and it is, to me, quite interesting as well. If you insist on tightening it down, I'll be honest, I won't know how to do that, because all of the info is important. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15. "Apart from the main undercarriage, produced by Messier-Dowty,[22] the A330 shares a common airframe structure with the Airbus A340" This is confusing. Are you saying that the undercarriage AND airframe are both common componenets of the two planes? Or that all of the airframe except the undercarriage are common? P.s. Just cut the airframe discussion and talk about the wheels. "The undercarriage was one of several common components of the A330 and A340, which were designed in parallel." KISS. :)

The main undercarriage on the A330 and A340 are different. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I reworded the caption. I think it is too meandering to talk about the other stuff that is common when we have a picture of what was different. I still have a concern though. That source just tells me who made it (less important) and not that it differed from the 340. Have a source for that? Also, the alt text calls it out as an A330/340 undercarriage. Doesn't say which it was!TCO (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source that comes in pictures. If you look at File:Saa a340-200 zs-sld lands london heathrow arp.jpg, what difference in the main landing gear can you see compared to the A330? The centreline bogie. The A330 doesn't have that. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production and testing

16. "in the Weser estuary, including at Bremen, Einswarden, Varel, and Hamburg" I would cut ALL that and end the sentence. In Germany was sufficent. We have so many nitty gritty details, gets hard on us...

17. Any better image of (any) engine? We just see the outside of the thing. A face in view, would show the blades. Or a view that doesn't have the housing on it. Or a diagram. Just asking...but if ya had it, would be a relief from "outside of a plane" photographs.

Nah, the Trent 700 is the only A330 engine with a picture.

18. Disagree with talking about funding (which is a general subsidy these governments do for teh jobz) in same para as launch. Also launch is kinda important and reads much better starting its own para, vice jammed at the back of a para on Euro subsidies.

If you want to launch an aircraft, you'd need funding, wouldn't you? Have you launched an aircraft before?

It's no biggie, but I've been a part of very big capital projects (not aircraft, but huge manufacturing sites) and the money was something you needed the whole way along. Once you get to launch, the program is pretty much there. I think for planes in particular, there is a huge cost of engineering up front, so that I really doubt the funding for launch was so special. But maybe I am wrong...can you educate me on a good source that discusses the economics and timing of funding and decisions and such?TCO (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19. My understanding is being above weight is a big no-no (have been a supplier). So being below weight was good. can we somehow explain this just a little in a phrase, so non-plane people get the gist? Something like "At the same time, weight tests came in favorable, showing the plane 500 pounds under weight". Or something like that?

Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entry into service

20. "Thai Airways received its first A330 during the second half of the year, operating it on routes from Bangkok to Taipei and Seoul on 19 December 1994." Think we can probably clean this up by just saying when they recieved it or when they operated it. But it's not clear to me which aspect the 19DEC refers to. Also did it go to both destinations on the 19DEC?

21. I want to cut out the discussion of Delta within a picture of Cathay. (KISS). And if we talk about size of operators, that ought to be in the operator section at the bottom. Let's caption it to support our nearby text.

Further development

made a bunch of small edits to improve readability.

Please discuss the blister fairing in body text, not just image and wikilink or explain it and why we should care and refefernce it. I took a shot at it, please double check. [1]

Design

Should we have an engine section in here?

No. Engines are partly covered in the "Development" section, and they have individual articles themselves. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixed a duplicate link. Haven't really been noticing many, but haven't been watching too hard. Something to cut of course. ARticle is hard enough to read without extra blue speedbumps. (Just watch for them and fix.)

Variants

1. "Honeywell 331–350[A] APU" Is the [A] correct?

I think that's part of the name. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big picture

(I find the sections after background and development, easier and smoother. I will keep looking for loose commas or places to tighten or make it easier on civilians. But basically, it's pretty much there, in the later sections. Lots of very well-researched detail...and smooth presentation. Really, my only hard part is the background and early development. That is crying out for a bit more "tell us where we are headed", also maybe just shortening the discussion. It just feels like we are talking a LOT about things that are not the 330. The other thing that would really help there is some graphic flowchart or the like that lists the predecessors aircraft and predessor names (all the 300, 320, B-this, T-that). Think fix that...and the thing will be ducky. I will continue to go over the thing from front to back...so I can tell Sandy I did so. But really, I am not making very tiny changes!TCO (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll do a development diagram. I will dummy something up. We just gotta have it. It's too much textual information and letters and numbers of aircraft types otherwise. This is the Powerpoint generation. We think in terms of graphics. We can slap it into the article, centered, before the discussion, and it will support the text after. Reader can look at it, when his eyes glaze over and he forgets what B-10 and a TA-9 are.TCO (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got the wheels moving on this. If you feel the urge, to work on this, would be high value. you kids are supposed to be better at this sort of stuff than us old people anyways.