This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
Because of the edits, the lead is now too short to really meet modern featured list standards, which call for an "engaging lead". I don't understand the obsession I've seen with reducing the size of FL leads. There's nothing wrong with a three- or four-paragraph lead for a list, and I don't know why a lot of editors such as yourself feel the need to make them stubby. Oh, well. I'm not interested enough in the article to edit-war over it, but it does make it much harder for me to make a blurb for TFL, should I decide to choose this list, since the lead doesn't provide enough material to write from. That's really too bad, since we don't have many lists related to aircraft to choose from. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per MOS:LEAD, "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article."
If it is more than a dozen lines it is no longer going to do its job unless it is a very complex topic - people will simply read the first few lines - any more than they'll skip the rest anyway. - NiD.29 (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]