Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2012: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 1
Add 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==July 2012==
==July 2012==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 757/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia ilicifolia/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia ilicifolia/archive1}}

Revision as of 16:09, 4 July 2012

July 2012

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 promoted by Ian Rose 16:09, 4 July 2012 [1].

Boeing 757

Nominator(s): SynergyStar (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved significantly over the past year, attaining GA (along with the related, and now FA-class, Boeing 767 article) and most recently A-Class status. During the recent ACR, this article was given a detailed copy-edit by a member of the Guild of Copy-Editors, and reviewers subsequently made the recommendation to proceed to FAC. I look forward to everyone's constructive input, and aim to advance this article to FA status. Thanks in advance for your consideration and advice!

Please note that when sibling article Boeing 767 passed its FAC earlier this year, previous FA delegate User:SandyGeorgia noted the successful completion of source spotchecks with this edit, and at the same time requested my mention of having already undergone such checks in my next FAC. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for the Aviation Project's A-class review, and made a few tweaks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and copy-editing assistance! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • FN69: missing author
  • FN133 and similar should use dash in title, not hyphen
  • You have no citations to several Bibliography entries - should either cite these or split them to a Further reading section. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Formatted. Periods checked, FN69 author restored, FN133 and like use dashes, and non-cited works moved to Further reading. Thanks for the source review! SynergyStar (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a well written and very comprehensive article - great work. I have quite a few comments, but most of them should be easy fixes:

  • "The 757 has since been commonly used for domestic and transcontinental flights" - this is vague. A flight from (say) London to Manchester is 'domestic', but so is a flight from (say) Boston to San Diego, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Likewise, a 'transcontinental' flight can be very long range (Sydney to Houston, for instance) or pretty short.
  • "As of 2011, 898 of the narrow-body twinjets are in airline service, and Delta Air Lines is the largest operator, with 185 aircraft" - can this be updated? If not, the tense should be changed
  • "featuring aerospace materials and propulsion advances" - awkward wording
  • "New features included ... under-wing engines" - this is a bit confusing given that the 727 had under-wing engines (as did many other aircraft, of course)
  • "On August 31, 1978, the 7N7 received its first airline commitments when Eastern Air Lines and British Airways announced launch orders totaling 40 aircraft" - this implies that this was the first Boeing had heard of the orders, which is unlikely. Presumably the companies had completed their initial negotiations prior to this date.
  • "while higher weights for improved takeoff performance in hot and high climates were optional." - can you please clarify what this means? I think I get it, but lots of readers won't.
  • "cargo capacity needs and passenger preference for wide-body aircraft were both regarded as limited on the shorter routes targeted for the 757" - the use of the word 'limited' here is vague, and 'the shorter routes targeted for the 757' is a bit passive.
  • "British Airways and Rolls-Royce unsuccessfully lobbied the British aircraft industry to manufacture 757 wings" - how would this have worked? Surely Boeing had responsibility for choosing its subcontractors, and would have told British companies to go jump if they couldn't meet its requirements at a competitive price.
  • "Production ramp-up for the 757 coincided with the winding-down of 727 assembly, allowing the Renton factory to sustain productivity levels." - This is really unlikely. Surely there was some loss of productivity as the plant tooled up to produce 757s and retrained its workers and the new supply lines and production processes were put in place (I'm pretty sure that Boeing openly acknowledges a productivity curve on new designs, and actually factors this into its planning and costings).
  • An interesting fact about the 757, and as is alluded to in the article, is that it never gained a great number of sales outside the US and (to a lesser extent, I think) Europe. For instance no Japanese carriers are listed at List of Boeing 757 operators, relatively few other Asian carriers are identified as operating these aircraft, and the type is rarely seen here in Australia (while I'm no plane spotter or frequent flyer, the only 757s I've seen at Australian airports are RNZAF and USAF aircraft). Material explaining why this was the case would be useful - at present the article focused on what the 757 is good at, but a description of where it's not suitable for would help even things out. Presumably the aircraft isn't commercially optimal for the shortish range and high passenger volume flights common in Asia or the long range flights needed to reach Australia from just about anywhere.
  • "Each wing features a supercritical cross-section and is equipped with five-panel leading edge slats" - can you please translate this into plain(er) English, or at least link to definitions?
  • "a cruising speed of Mach 0.8 (533 mph or 858 km/h)" - is this the same for all variants of the 757?
  • "which together reduce overall weight by 1,490 pounds (680 kg) versus preceding aircraft." - this comparison is really difficult to understand. What aircraft is the 757 being compared to here? The weights of earlier aircraft obviously differed considerably (eg, this aircraft obviously weights more than a DC-3, but less than a 747!).
  • "In the 1980s, other narrow-body Boeing aircraft, including the 737, adopted the 757's interior" - this implies that these aircraft made this change themselves! I'd suggest tweaking this to something like "In the 1980s, Boeing altered the interior designs of its other narrow-body aircraft to be similar to that of the 757".
  • "Intended as a replacement for the 727, the type offered improved efficiency, increased capacity, and longer range" - the article has already mentioned this at least once.
  • All the figures for the numbers of different variants in service are as at July 2011. Can this be updated?
  • "The first operator to use the 757 as an official transport" - had any operator been using it as an 'unofficial transport' before this?
  • You should probably note that Iron Maiden nick-named their plane "Ed Force One". I'd also suggest including one of the photos of this aircraft available on Commons as it's probably the most unusual markings ever applied to this rather dull type of aircraft!
  • Reference 18 ("Boeing 757: introducing the big-fan narrowbody") is to eight pages, which is much too broad to allow readers to easily verify facts. Please replace this with references to the individual page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made. Thanks for the detailed comments! Adjustments in response are as follows:
  • Please note that a "transcontinental" flight (Boston to San Diego) is not an "intercontinental" flight (Sydney to Houston). The lead now specifies: "used for short and medium range domestic flights, as well as transcontinental U.S. services". A second correction: the 727 has no under-wing engines at all (it has a "clean wing design"). The phrase "tail-mounted" has been added to clarify.
  • Reworded: "new materials and propulsion advances in the civil aerospace industry"; "On August 31, 1978, Eastern Air Lines and British Airways became the first carriers to publicly commit to the 7N7 when they announced launch orders totaling 40 aircraft"; and "while a wider fuselage had been considered, Boeing's market research on short-haul airline routes found low cargo capacity needs and reduced passenger preference for wide-body aircraft." The "Boeing altered the interior designs..." suggestion has been added verbatim.
  • An explanation of "hot and high" MTOWs has been added. A new ref clarifies that Boeing, BA, and RR lobbied British industry. The Renton factory statement now says that the 727/757 transition was merely timely. Leading edge slats has been linked again, and Mach 0.8 referenced to all variants. The weight savings is stated as an overall reduction and not a comparison. The repetitive 727 replacement statement is removed, and "official transport" is now "government operator."
  • All July 2011 census mentions have been adjusted to past tense; the next Flight census is likely in August 2012. Refs have been added on the 757's difficulties in Asia (mainly not big enough). There are also other mentions that the 757 was seen elsewhere as too big for a narrow-body aircraft.
  • The Velupillai (1982) citations are now split by page number. "Ed Force One" is mentioned; not sure how to fit in another govt/private photo into the article though. Originally there were two photos (C-32 and RNZAF), it was a challenge to fit the Argentinian presidential one after a drive-by editor added it. I'm open to suggestions if a fourth pic is to enter the section. Thanks for the comments and suggestions! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have now - very quickly! - been addressed. Great work. In regards to the "Ed Force One" photo, I'd suggest taking out the photo of the Argentine Government aircraft - the "Air Force Two" use of the Boeing 757 is highly notable, the photo of the RNZAF aircraft in Antarctica is fascinating, but this Argentine aircraft isn't all that interesting or well known. I'm pretty sure that Iron Maiden put out a book on their tour which had a significant focus on "Ed Force One", and the aircraft is mildly famous. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, and your support! The photo has been replaced as you suggested, and now it fits with one gov't, one military, and one private photo. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
"The maximum take-off weight (MTOW) was set at 220,000 pounds (99,800 kg), which was five tons more than the 727." It would be better to avoid mixing units and to express the additional take-off weight in pounds/kilos. The use of 'tons' is also problematic as they can be short (2,000 lb) or long (2,240 lb). Aa77zz (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Converted. Short tons was linked with the number, but it's now 10,000 pounds (4,540 kg) which is better. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As GA reviewer, I was notified when this article was nominated for FA. The editors here have done a very great job on this article. It passed GA with flying colors and has only gotten better. I will leave a more in depth comment later, until then keep up the good work! Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your initial comments! Just to note; the article has returned to being fairly quiet, and this evaluation currently awaits an image licensing review and further contributors. Several past A-class reviewers have been busy. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting the image check request! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check below; just to note, a request was posted for the Nathan to add further comment, he seems to be quite busy. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I left the FAC open for the best part of a day following this note, in case of further comment, but I think there's been enough time now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Maybe mention the role of two 757s in the september 11 attacks, in the lede? There is an unlinked reference to "fuselage plugs" under the 757-300 variant, and i'm not sure the reader would know what these are. Otherwise, I'm a support, though haven't checked sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! Searching for "fuselage plug" didn't come up with any Wiki explanation, so it's been adjusted to "extending the fuselage before and after the wings." As for the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lede now has a related summary: "The airliner has recorded eight hull-loss accidents, including seven fatal crashes, as of June 2012." 9/11 could be mentioned directly, provided that fellow editors deem it necessary. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. On the one hand, the sept 11 attacks are the most famous case of aircraft-based terrorism; on the other hand, the fact that they involved 757s was really incidental to the nature of the attacks. So I'm happy with that. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and comments! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review I've just checked all the images, and they're fine: all are either covered by an ORTS ticket, have been checked after being uploaded from Flickr or are PD-US Government. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick. Synergy, apart from a couple of minor tweaks to prose, just one minor structural/formatting point from me: the subheader "Related lists" under "See also" seems redundant when there's nothing but lists there anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, usage on "mid " vs. "mid-" is changing. Google ngrams tend to strongly favor the space these days; see for instance mid-1979 vs. mid 1979. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nick-D for the image review, it's much appreciated! Thanks also to Ian Rose for the prose enhancements. I've removed the "Related lists" subheader as it does seem redundant. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, Dan, hyphens aren't a particular barrow of mine, I just try to follow common usage -- if the usage is changing (and if the change doesn't look like a fad!) then I don't have an issue with losing the hyphen in this instance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I've been playing around with Google's ngrams, and they don't seem to be accurately reflecting hyphen usage ... not sure what's up with that. The dictionaries support losing the hyphen, but I'll have to keep looking for a proper corpus. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 promoted by Ian Rose 23:43, 1 July 2012 [2].

Banksia ilicifolia

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC), Hesperian (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I felt the need to "complete" it and make it the best account of the species available. I feel it is of the standard of the other 20 banksia Featured Articles, or if not can be brought up to speed pretty quickly. So have at it. (Thanks to J Milburn for yet another thorough GA review...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Nice article, as always. Partial comments (more later)

Lead
Description

Guettarda (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More.

Taxonomy
Infrageneric placement
Distribution and habitat
Ecology
Cultivation
  • The tone of the writing changes here. It's not a problem, but it does feel like it was written by someone else. A more consistent style would improve the overall quality.
  • Sentence 3: "plus prominently..." - "plus" is a bit colloquial. "Combined with" or "in combination with" would be better.

Guettarda (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • tree in the plant Proteaceae family—I don't think we need to be told that a tree is a plant, but if you think it's necessary it would be better before "family" anyway.
  • 10 metres (33 ft) high (also later) —I'd prefer "tall" to "high", here and later. To me, "high" refers more to location, but not a big deal.
  • English Holly—either lose the "English" or change the link to Ilex aquifolium.
  • red-tinged with maturity this acts as—semicolon after "maturity"?
  • Prolific botanist—I'm not clear why his prolixity is relevant here.
  • although some leaves have all or mostly entire margins—I think I know what you mean, but "smooth" or something similar might be clearer.
  • For the "See also" Taxonomy of Banksia, shouldn't it be Taxonomy of Banksia ?
  • range from convex or concave—should it be "to"?
  • publication of the species—species description?
  • Twenty-eight Parrot —if you change the link to point to the "Subspecies" section, it might be clearer why the name here is different to the linked article title.
  • acari... coleoptera... hymenoptera... thysanoptera—taxa above species level should be capitalised.
  • In "Infrageneric placement", i wasn't even able to guess at the meaning of "circumscription" in this context (whereas other relatively technical passages I was often able to infer the meanings). Can this be reworded or explained?
  • The term "subtribe" is used only once without explanation or wikilink. Given the many different terms used to describe different groupings / classifications / levels of grouping, this isn't really satisfactory. My more general remark is that, for an encyclopedia article about an organism, there seems perhaps too much detail and discussion of classificatory schema. Is this a Banksia thing? Has it been debated previously? Happy to hear if others think it's fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I found that I could just remove the 'subtribe' reference - and this level of detail is consistent with the other banksia FAs - giving enough to give context but not superfluous. I'll have a think and look-over again though. I've trimmed a bit which is not immediately pertinent to B. ilicifolia - bit tricky as I've read it many times. If you see anything else you feel is extraneous I'll have a look and prune if possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 30 June 2012 (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/Featured_log/July_2012&oldid=500668547"