Talk:Boeing 767/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: wackywace 11:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. From the looks of it, this is a very good, well written article. I will post my findings within a week, and at the end I will come to a conclusion. wackywace 11:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article, and have these comments. I am placing the article on hold. wackywace 16:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Lede

• There should not be any references in the lede, per WP:LEADCITE.
• Flight deck is linked and cockpit is linked both with the words flight deck - only one is needed.

• Refs and repeated link have been removed. -fnlayson (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Development

• Although it is linked in the lede, you may want to link the 757.
• "High-density market." What does this mean?
• Please link Delta Air Lines
• "777F, and allowing Boeing to compete more effectively against the A330-200F" Please make this "Airbus A330-200F"
• "For the 767 design, Boeing incorporated the engines used on the 747, namely the Pratt & Whitney JT9D and General Electric CF6,[1] with wings sized to match. The 767 was the first Boeing jetliner to offer a choice of engines at its launch." So there were two engine types used on the 747, but the 767 was the first to offer a choice of the two engines? Please clarify.

  The key phrase there is "at its launch". Previous Boeing airliners added engine options later. -fnlayson (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The basic 767 was designed with enough range to fly across North America and across the northern Atlantic." Does this mean it could fly over the northern Atlantic and North America, or just one of the two?

• Can do both but not in one trip. That should be an "or" instead. -fnlayson (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Despite Boeing's two-person cockpit design, United Airlines initially demanded a conventional three-person crew with two pilots and a flight engineer." Do we know why?

I don't know why, but I can take a stab at plausable reasons. Some airlines don't like radical features, and a two-person cockpit was unconventional and unproven at the time, the airline may have been comfortable with the Flight Engineer onboard and not sought get rid of them (after all, if the 767 replaces older jets, those guys are out of a job/the company needs to find something else to do with those employees). Some companies take their responsibilities to thier existing employees seriously, rather than trying to screw their numbers down to the minimum to make a thin sliver of extra money, or have a particular attatchment to a section of the business (maintainence, stewarding, ect) and don't really want to stab it in the back. It could have been a strong employee culture, or a union request, which wouldn't be bizarre; or the compnay might have genuine issues and questions of safety and operational practices in the new configuration. Can't say what it was, but those are factors that might have been at play in some airlines' decision making processes, and they may have been considerable enough to not bother knocking the extra man out of the crew for a very small saving. There was also controversy that planes were getting too complicated, further automation and computerisation may be self defeating in the amount of maintaince required or even increase crew workloads, perhaps unfounded in today's hindsight, but some operators felt "simple, understable, traditional" was the way to go. It's why ETOPS, fly-by-wire, and a dozen other innovations were so slow coming in, fear of the new. Kyteto (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1981, a U.S. Presidential task force studied the safety of operations with two crew on wide-body aircraft." Why? Was there a concern having two crew rather than three was unsafe?

• 3 crew cockpit was previous standard to divide and keep workload manageable. -fnlayson (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• "by the 787 launch delays," The word "the" implies the reader knows what the launch delays were. Us aviation folk do, yes, but the casual reader will not.

• All of this has been addressed, but please check to see if that is sufficient. -fnlayson (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Design

• The "Interior" section is poorly sourced.

• A reference was added to the uncited sentence there. -fnlayson (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Variants

• "Several versions of the -200 and -300 variants have been produced. In the 2000s, all three basic variants were in production simultaneously." Source?
• "This model is used mainly for continental routes such as New York City to Los Angeles." By United Airlines or United and other airlines? If so, which airlines?
• "After test flights the aircraft was stored at the Victorville Airport in California for a number of years before being scrapped in July 2007." Source?

• Text removed or cited. Airline use clarified. -fnlayson (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Operators

• The data in the table is "through end of December 2010", but the text is "As of July 2010". Could these be made the same?

• No, those are the dates of the relevant references. Flight International puts out the in service data list just once a year. -fnlayson (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

All the issues have been addressed, I am happy to pass this as a GA. Good work, and good luck if and when you take it to FAC. wackywace 19:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I sorta expected more things to fix or clarify. :) -fnlayson (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)