Wikipedia:Peer review/Boeing 747/archive1

Boeing 747

I had some time over this long weekend, and started working on it for the past two days. The revamp's not complete yet, but I'd greatly appreciate some comments for more improvements before it actually goes for WP:FAC. - Mailer Diablo 19:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Boeing 747-400LCF 2.jpg and Image:Boeing 747-8I Large.jpg will need a proper fair use rationale (see WP:FUC). Facts and trivia is too list-weighty and as trivial should probably be removed anyhow, with any important facts incorporated directly into the text. Thanks, AndyZ _t 00:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. A few comments:

• The first image caption mentions a "Boeing 747-412". I don't think this is explained in the text, so could you clarify whether this is an airline identifier with a note?
• Could you link the first use of US$?
• A few of the sentences, replete with commas, seem to run on a little too long, and could readily be broken up, at least into two smaller sentences.
• Do you have a reference for the sentence, "Initially, many airlines regarded the 747 with skepticism"?
• You could get rid of the "see also" section as the current entries are already linked in the main article.
• Please correct the word "borrown".
• I agree with AndyZ's comment regarding the trivia. FA reviewers seem not to like bulleted lists where prose would suffice.

Thanks! :) — RJH 14:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks guys! I've ressolved the fair-use issue, the typo is fixed, and the very specific make made generalised (bordering on cruft?). Anyway, more feedback is welcomed greatly, and I'll be working on the rest of the issues. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• The 747SP section mentions the previous 747SB designation twice, with two slightly different reasons why 747SB was changed to 747SP. Also, I'm not sure there needs to be a Google search link for 747-200 seat diagrams -- in fact, I suspect they might vary from airline to airline anyway. Northwest has two different seat configurations for the 747-200: international and beach market. Maybe instead of seat maps, you could list the current notable operators of each type, if the lists don't get too long. Or, you could break the lists of operators into separate sub-articles. All things considered, though, the article looks good and informative. --Elkman - ^(talk) 15:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking of binning seat configurations altogether, with the exception of noting the most number of passengers and/or particularly un-usual high profile configurations noted by news media. - Mailer Diablo 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Airliners.net has typical seat configurations for various versions of the 747. Here are the statistics for the 747-400, for example. I think listing these typical capacities would be sufficient to identify the relative number of passengers that can be carried by the different versions of the 747. --Elkman - ^(talk) 15:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Further feedback from AndyZ's peer review script, as of follows that was on my talkpage. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.<ref name="nbsp">See footnote</ref>
• Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.<ref name="spellnum">See footnote</ref>
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.<ref name="linkdate">See footnote</ref>
• As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.<ref name="alpha">See footnote</ref>
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).<ref name="awt">See footnote</ref>
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. <ref name="copyedit">See footnote</ref>

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ _t 01:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)