Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:04, 1 June 2009

	Boeing 777 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 17, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 14, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Aviation A‑class

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 A This article has been rated as A-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Comparable Aircraft

I think it is a mistake, and frankly misleading to the average reader, to list the A350 as a comparable aircraft. It hasn't been built yet, and will not enter airline service for four more years, if that. I recommend that one be removed from the list.

--EditorASC 00:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. How can the 777 be a direct competitor of the a330, a340 and the a350. The A340 claims to be a 747 competitor. The A330 a 767 competitor. Airbus doesnt really have a competitor for the 777 until the XWB is built.

This is nonsense. The A350XWB as built is competitor to the B-787 creamliner. The B-777 is a developmental dead-end because its huge engines are a logistical nightmare. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Do your research. Only the smallest XWB competes with the 787. Only the largest A340 directly competes with the 747. How can the 777 be a dead-end when only now Airbus is playing catch-up in that market? Get your POV out of here.--67.173.248.35 (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

777-300ER launch customer

Current text mentions that AF is the launch customer but for political reasons, JL is listed as the launch customer. Plan to remove this because Boeing has multiple launch customers and no citation can be found for the political reason. See http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q4/nr_041101g.html showing ANA as "a launch customer" Chergles (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Source 34, Alain Mengus' article on the 777X, lists it: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205142232/airtransportbiz.free.fr/Aircraft/777X-10.html

"The first official firm order for the 777-300ER came only in March 2000, when Japan Airlines announced an order for eight airplanes of the type. The next order followed in June, with an order from EVA Air for four 777-300ERs alongside three the -200LR airframes. In October, Air France placed an order for ten 777-300ERs and took options on ten further airplanes. For political and marketing reasons, the carrier chose not to be advertised as the launch customer, although it was actually slated to take delivery of the first 777-300ER. This announcement was followed, on 08 November, by an order from Alitalia, which took six options on -300ERs, in addition to six firm order for six -200ERs and an equal number of rolling options"

Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Since that reference is an archive copy, it might be good to replace uses of it where possible. I could not find numbers in my books for the Market A, B & C ranges. But some of the other uses could be replaced I bet. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen other sources for the ranges, but the first two are being replaced. The 777-X ref is clear, and the AF political one is controversial so I'm removing it. What is left now of the referencing is to get the number of Boeing/RR/Goodrich press releases replaced with 3rd party ones. SynergyStar (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. I'll try to help with 3rd party refs... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Per the FA review, I have replaced about six Boeing Company references with 3rd party ones. The RR/Goodrich ones may need replacing as well. I will update the changes on the FA review page. However, after this I am rather busy for the next few weeks, so I may not be able to make as extensive edits to this article. Thanks to all the other major contributors for your help and best wishes on the review. SynergyStar (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

correct reference style

There are several. Let's make it like this.

<ref>, ''Logistics Business Review'', May 5, 2008, Retrieved 2008-10-20.</ref>

Which looks like reference 53 (at least 53 now)

Chergles (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Look fine. But article titles are generally in quotes. Or use the {{cite web}} template. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to standardize reference styles. Anyone's help appreciated. Will start tomorrow and do a few at a time. Chergles (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe MLS style. Example: Author. "Article name". Publisher, Date published. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Test reference {{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=15 November 2008 |work= |publisher= |date= }}

. The Boeing Company. 1 January 2008. Retrieved 15 November 2008. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

Chergles (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion I will use the above style for website references. We'll decide how to treat books and journals later. We'll use the day month year style (like 15 November 2008). We can do it the other way if desire but must do it the same way. I will start from the top and do only two or three today to test it. Chergles (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is harder than I thought. I just reviewed the introduction and made minor changes. One thing I will follow is to use "8 November 2008" not "08 November 2008". Changing all of the references to the citeweb version is very hard so I have tentatively decided not to do it. Chergles (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've run into another problem. 8 November 2008 or 2008-11-08? I chose 8 November 2008. Any violent disagreements, let me know. I will hold off mass changing to let anyone say something. Chergles (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

error in logic or description

The 777-200ER section says (paraphrased) "the plane can be powered by engine A, B, C, D, E....In 1988, Air France ordered a plane with engine Z".

How do we fix this?

1. List all engines, including a dizzy list of variants (too long) 2. List the originally offered engines (specify so) then say that AF got the 94,000 lb. engine. 3. other ways

Chergles (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Boeing specs currently lists 3 engines for the -200ER. Not sure it'd help to list the original -200ER engines. I suggest just listing the current engines themselves. Maybe say they have thrust ratings over 90,000 lb. The current thrust values are listed in the spec table if someone wants more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a big chore to find out what variants were actually ordered. Anyone ordered the Trent 884 or the PW4084. UA probably ordered the PW4084. So I think it is ok to go with your idea of listing the current engines offered and maybe mention the launch customer's engine, if it was United and the lower thrust PW4084. Chergles (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC) The first 3 -200ER were GE90 powered British Airways followed by a GE powered China Southern and 2 PW powered United aircraft. Chergles (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

neck removed

The introduction refers to a neck, which has a clarify tag. I have not seen any good reference that clarifies this. It may be jargon and not essential to the article. I will remove it for now.

Distinguishing features of the 777 include the six wheels on each main landing gear, its circular fuselage cross section, the largest diameter turbofan engines of any aircraft, the pronounced "neck" aft of the flight deck, and the blade-like end to the tail cone.

Actually, the tail cone is not that distinguishing. The later B-52's have them. So does the MD-80 and MD-11. Chergles (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The tail cone is a distinguishing feature particularly against other Boeing types like the 767. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

accidents and incidents

I have no hidden agenda, whether to maximize the number of events or to hide them. Is the current list ok? Or should we just include hull losses and fatalities?

I think including everything, like it is now, makes the article not comparable to the Boeing 707 or other earlier aircraft. The modern, internet era, makes reporting more comprehensive so we can find references to obscure events, even those with no hull losses or loss of life.

I am slightly inclined to include only hull losses and fatalities? What do you think? Chergles (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Within the last few months WP:Aircraft has added guidelines for what is a notable incident or accident at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Incidents. However, the Boeing 777 has only a few serious incidents and 1 accident so the criteria used here has been looser. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Fnlayson is correct because of the lack of serious accidents the more serious incidents were added. I suspect that most are not notable and could be deleted apart from the BA38. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How about only keeping the BA 38 incident per MilborneOne and also the fire incident where a person was burned to death? Chergles (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This change has been done. I hope it's not controversial. Chergles (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not really. I don't see the point in bothering with just a few entries. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider this an incident but due to the previous cases of engine problems on the GE90 115B, i thought i would add mine. I was taking off from Taipei in an Eva Air 777 300ER and as we lifted off there was a massive vibration throughout the cabin, it lasted 15 seconds. I believe the pilot powered down and continued to LAX with no issues. I'm no mechanic but it seemed like the engine was the cause of this deafening sound. Just don't trust these new engines after the experience. Feb 1 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorneh (talk • contribs)

Need better 777-300 photos

The two -300 photos show profiles that are mostly from the front. The article needs a good side profile to illustrate the length of this plane. -68.89.238.25 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a length wise 77W pic:

Regards SynergyStar (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This photo is now used, a lengthwise one:

Regards SynergyStar (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the new AeroMexico photo has some nice elements, but it sandwiches a section with pics on both sides. SynergyStar (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

featured article

After a year and a half of improvement since the featured article application was rejected, this article is now being considered for FAC (featured article). Help make it successful! People will be making comments and some will oppose it. Let's try to get it passed! WP:FAC Chergles (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the {{fac}} tag above, as this article is currently listed at WP:FAC. I am concerned, though, that a principle editor of the article previously removed the fac tag; it seems s/he feels the article is not ready for FAC. Further input from editors of the article (and, of course, anyone else) would be welcome at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Boeing 777. Maralia (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no discussion or notice here about putting this article for FA review. A week or two notice would have been good, allowed others to get everything referenced and so forth.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, probably should have done but now it's just a race to do it right now instead of over a week or two. If we need more time, we could always ask for it.

Made some organizational/reference edits, and rewrote whole sections; the "Variants" subsections need some more referencing, also the Section 41 reference, landing gear record re 773ER, comparison to KC10 tanker range, etc. Any repeated wikilinks of duplicate items needs to be removed, also I think the external links can be looked at. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Whew! That took a while, but a lot more references have been added; all that is left that I can see are the Section41 reference, the 77W vs. 773 refs, and refs for the 777F section. Any one got some of those? Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work SynergyStar. I have not found anything on the common section 41. Nothing in 3-4 books and I've tried internet searches with combinations of Boeing 777, 767, Section 41, nose, share, & common, but have not found anything solid. Section 41 for the 767 and 777 are made in Wichita (Spirit AeroSystems now) though. So there is probably are a lot of similarities at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I did also google it, but so far nada. I have placed exclusion marks around that sentence for now. Maybe the person who came up with that Section 41 picture has a reference? Also, whoever added the 77W vs. 773 comparisons, and the 777F vs A330F/MD-11F comparisons. SynergyStar (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to make a big issue of it, some people do like variety, but it was also nice to have all the Variants pictures on one side, except for 2 in one section (777-300ER), like the 747 article. But either way works for me, anyhow the FA reviewers probably have bigger fish to fry (so to speak)...thanks for the collaborative effort! SynergyStar (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If the sections are long enough mixing in some images on the left is good to reduce image crowding. I tried some adjustments tonight. If you have some better ideas, give it a go. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

FA review recs

Of the issues recently brought up on the review page, I have tried to address most of them (30/35 total). These issues still remain, for whoever would like to tackle them (quote/paraphrase):

• lb to tonne conversion. Should that be lb to kg or tons to tonnes?
• info cited to the Goodrich Corporation/Rolls Royce
• sales figures = original research?

I will be busy in the next few weeks--best wishes for the review. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I had the conversions done and cut out the blacklog row in the orders and delivery so no math would be required to get the numbers. But it failed. No reason given. Guess it was not getting enough votes to stay open or something. Had 1 support and 1 oppose. Oh well. Maybe go for Good Article status early next year.. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, got to see the article and the review details...it was a valiant effort by those involved, but it probably would have been better to have gotten more preparation and advance notice before the FA nomination went ahead. Still, the article benefited a lot from the flurry of improvements made during the FA attempt. I agree, GA status first is probably better. Not quite clear on what issues remain for FA status, other than the references. My guess is that the 2-week period came and went. Maybe try again later. SynergyStar (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work writing and rewriting content. I think it'd be better to get a Misplaced Pages:Peer review before putting it up for GA or FA again. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also to you for your hard work maintaining these aircraft articles. Actually I think that a peer review is the best way to go, and after changes have been incorporated from there, go to FA review again (perhaps directly there if those involved agree). The latest review had 1 for 1 against, hopefully the peer review will give good suggestions and evaluation to progress the article further in content and status. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FA nom?

The article has now successfully passed GA review, and since then has received some touchups/updates. Perhaps we could consider putting it up for peer review as a prelude to FA nomination, or perhaps go to the nomination directly? Comments are appreciated, thanks in advance Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What about A-class review? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The A-class criteria are within reach, and the final step prior to FA. Would you be willing to put forward the review request? SynergyStar (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Is starting that this week OK? -Fnlayson (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks in advance. SynergyStar (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources, reliability

The FAC lists concern over airliners.net and other similar sources. I am very open to suggestions. Those website has numbers of aircraft per airline. If we don't use this then we have to stick with a general description of the 777, we can't say United has 53 or 45 planes, etc. That's ok with me. In short, if SandyGeorgia insists we musn't use those type of websites, then I will comply and adjust the article text according. Chergles (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Understandable. I can replace airliner number reference with Flight International data, but it is data from August. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Our collaborative effort is working! Thanks to everyone working on the FAC! I was going to do some creative re-writing but then I stopped because the goal now is FA and the technical improvements needed to get that! Chergles (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

4th paragraph

The beginning of the article should have 3 or 4 paragraph according to WP:LEAD. There is currently one oppose to FA, mistakenly citing the requirement for 4 paragraphs. What if we attempt to add another paragraph? This doesn't seem to be a requirement. If we do, what do we include?

The sections of the article are:
Development somewhat covered in a sentence
Design covered
Variants covered
Operators not covered but a very short section
Incidents not covered but not appropriate?
Specifications not covered but it's a chart
Sales covered

So should we create a 4th paragraph to satisfy the objection/oppose even though we meet the requirements for FA, but don't meet the erroneously stated requirement? A 4th paragraph is permitted.

Here's a sample 4th paragraph that could be inserted between paragraph 2 and 3: United Airlines was the first airline to operate the 777 in commercial service. Singapore Airlines operates the most 777 aircraft among the airlines. (editor's note: worded so we'll have airlines listed, not leasing companies). British Airways operates -- 777, one of which was involved in the only hull loss to date.

Chergles (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, the 747 article which is FA has only 3 paragraphs. others and I have already expanded the lead to over twice its former size...maybe they could take a look... IMO, incidents don't need to be included up there as it is a small section...and neither included in the 747 or other airliner articles. SynergyStar (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 3 paragraphs meet the requirements. However, an administrator put an "oppose" because of the 3 paragraphs. I am just throwing out ideas for a possible 4th paragraph, not insisting on it. Chergles (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the possible extra paragraph you've proposed is a logical one (if one were to be added). Made some additions:

All the references can be found in the article, just can move them up if this were to be added to the lead. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• That seems fine, except I'd say the -200ER is an extended range (or longer range) version of the -200. It's both, but the longer range part seems more important. These new sentences are sort of tied to what's is in the 3rd lead paragraph now as well. That covers every major thing in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• For whatever it is worth the 747 article had 4 shorter paragraph in Feb 2008 before it got FA status. The content has been reworked into 3 longer paragraph since then. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the article history info. I've added the paragraph into the lead, with the -200ER listed for its extended range aspect, and moved a sentence up for flow and so that the 3rd paragraph doesn't seem so small. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

200ER

Interestingly the 777-200ER does not appear on the FAA type certificate and the JAA type certificate just mentions that an increased gross weight version of Model -200 was approved by JAA on 22 January 1997. It would appear the the 200ER is just a marketing name and official they are still 200s with an approved increased gross weight. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The -200ER had been called -200 IGW early on. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Understood just wanted to make the point that -200ER is not an official designation so would not appear on the aircraft documents or manuals. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review or Good Article nom?

This article has failed Featured Article review twice. It is in much better shape after the FA review in Dec. 2008. I suggest either a Peer review or Good article nomination at this point. What do you think? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a GA nomination is a good idea. SynergyStar (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. The GA criteria look very achievable. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a final check is in order, just to make sure the article is fully ready, particularly regarding WP:MOS and third-party, reliable refs, then I'll be happy to nominate the article for GA review. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Having done a review of the prose and some references, and overall flow of the article, I've made some fixes and adjustments. It would probably be helpful to add:

• References for all ranges; some have them already, but not the 772, 772ER, and some 772LR refs (could someone check against and add <ref name="Boe_777_specs">) for following?:

1. 772: "range capability between 3,780 and 5,235 nautical miles (7,000 to 9,695 km)."
2. 772ER: "Range capability is between 6,000 and 7,700 nautical miles (11,000 to 14,260 km)."
3. 772LR: "surpassed 777-200LR's operating range of 9,380 nautical miles (17,350 km)."
4. 772LR: "The 777-200LR is capable of flying 9,450 nautical miles (17,501 km, equivalent to 7/16 of the Earth's circumference) in 18 hours." (this one may probably be changed as it does not match the 9,380 nmi in the other statements and chart)

• Is there a better 3rd party ref for the "three optional auxiliary fuel tanks manufactured by Marshall Aerospace in the rear cargo hold" for the 772LR section? The current link doesn't work; also for the sake of consistency, given that the 77W section mentions how much add'l. tankage there is (in gallons/L), is the added tankage volume listed somewhere?

Also for consistency some additional 77W order data may be included in its section. Some additional tweaks here and there will improve the standard of the article. All help is appreciated as this article moves forward. Thanks and regards SynergyStar (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Covered a lot of that, I believe. I have not found anything on the C-market in my 777 books yet. That might be too new. Will try to find something on the Marshall tanks... -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help, Fnlayson! The range refs are great, now looks like the tankage/C-market ref(s) remain...also, perhaps replacing company references with 3rd party ones where possible would help. I'll look into that. Additionally, there is an extra PIA 772ER photo at the bottom of the page, it seems a bit redundant; I know there's been a concerted effort to add PIA 777 photos, maybe if a high-quality PIA 772LR photo were found that could work, but otherwise right now that photo probably is extra. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping on the additional refs; hope you don't mind me replacing the Boeing fuel tank ref for a German aviation publication, I've tried to reduce the number of company refs so that reviewers will be more satisfied with the information coming from outside sources. I also tried to find extra sources for the 77W landing gear tire loading, but got only general mentions. Refs have been added for the current competitors to the 777NG and 773; if a ref could be added to (a) 777-200's rival being the A330-300 and (b) 777-200ER's rival the A340-300, that would complete the citations. Thanks for your continued assistance! Regards SynergyStar (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. Tag parts that need a cites, clarification or other. I've worked on this article a lot and can miss these things. The part of the extensive flight testing should be added back with a book footnote. A good bit more testing was required to get ETOPS approval early on. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and found references that best fit those areas regarding competing info, and I've restored the extensive flight test statement, using a published account in a Seattle newspaper from program officials, which was the best ref I could find. I think for the most part the citations have now been examined and made reliable to a greater degree. This will help the article in GA evaluation; and presumably during it, if some references need to be tweaked they can be. Now I think the article is close to being submitted for review, which covers the areas of 1) well-written, 2) accurate, 3) broad, 4) neutral, and 5) stable; perhaps a final check of the article with regards to the MoS (punctuation, endashes, etc.)? Regards SynergyStar (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as MoS, perhaps some of the specs in the paragraphs could use the {{convert}} template? Also some of the refs use the # month year format while others use the 200#-##-## format, do they need to be aligned? Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the dates should be in (Month day, year) format instead of ISO (year-month-day) format. I started on that last week. The spec values had unit conversions listed before. There's generally no problem using the convert template unless a number is below 10 and needs to be spelled out. I'll work on those. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and completed a series of prose, reference, and other adjustments. Before taking this article to GA review, it would be helpful if all the dates are fully converted (yes it is annoying but some remain), some are still "1 December 2008" instead of "December 1, 2008" and also "2008-12-10" instead of "December 12, 2008" (real examples). Is there a bot to help this or is it a manual operation? Also, I have used the convert template on all data points in the text that it can be used for; the specifications table does not have them, but neither does the 747 article table. Lastly, in adding references, I could not find one which states that the 777F's landing gear is the same semi-articulating ones as on the 777W, instead references indicating the same fuel tankage for both have been used.

In summary, the article has been improved to the point where it is within GA nomination status; the prose, accuracy, breadth, neutrality, and stability are good, although it's probable that discussion of MoS and referencing suggestions will follow. Provided that the dates are fixed, I think it is about time to take this article for review. Any thoughts? Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help Fnlayson, the dates are fixed now. Following these edits, the article looks to be in pretty good shape, and I think it's about ready for the nomination; given an article of this size and scope, there may be further edits made at the suggestion of reviewers, but hopefully they find it largely in order. Are there any further issues that need to be addressed? If you agree, I will submit the article for review shortly. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks, I planned to go back through the article this morning, but you already did it. I'll look some more for a better reference for the Market C range and the shorten model codes (. I can't think of anything else to do. Maybe nominate it later this week unless we find some issue needing more time. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I liked the existing AirTransportBiz.com reference, it was excellently written, but I acknowledge that some have expressed concerns especially since it is now archived; I replaced that ref with one from Norris & Wagner's "Boeing 777: Technological Marvel" (2001) which discusses on p. 102 plans for a "super long-range version" that flies "9,000 miles" (which is 7,800 nmi), and refers to it as the "ultra-long range C-market version" based on the company's Z-chart for payload and range. As for the codes, they are the official IATA codes according to the link, and individual codes such as 77W etc are used on seatguru.com, airline websites, etc. SynergyStar (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added a table of the official ICAO type codes with a link and ref to ICAO. Didnt add it to the paragraph as not all the codes described in it are ICAO codes. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help MilborneOne; I have found references for each of the 777-300ER codes and will be adding them in shortly. SynergyStar (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Codes are now fully referenced; and all http references now use the cite web template; also I checked and there are 3 main Boeing Co. references, the 1) program summary, 2) prices, and 3) technical data. Of the last category, it is multipled by several references for the variants, but all are linked directly from the "Boe_777_specs" source (if necessary could combine them to this one). The orders search page ref serves as a backup for the static data presented in the other orders and deliveries ref (but could also be replaced with the latter). I also found references mentioning the heavy landing gear loads of the 77W, but the specific number is only in the Goodrich reference. Upon reviewing the article, perhaps we can submit it for the review process to occur this week? Thanks for your help, and any further suggestions are welcome. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for Good Article, but is well down of the list under Engineering and technology, Transport. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Rolls royce to redesign engines over safety fears

This has been all over the news - should probably be added to the article, although I wouldn't make too much of it. Just something like "Following incidents in London and Atlanta, Rolls-Royce made alterations to the engines used in some of the planes to prevent a repeat incident."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008849166_webntsb12.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is only one component needs changing and is not worth a mention here, better in the related engine and accident article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor overall engine changes do not need to be covered. A mention of engine changes may be in order at the end of the last related incident entry however. (Delta entry does not have an article.) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination

1. Well-written: pass
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: pass
3. Broad in its coverage: pass
4. Neutral: pass
5. Stable: pass
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: pass

After reviewing this excellent article I also had a quick glance at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Boeing 777/archive2. The issues addressed here are far ahead of GAN, so therefore this article passes. My only concern is the lead. My understanding of the lead is that it ought to be a summary of the article, hence no references are required. Nothing should be mentioned that isn't mentioned later, so I would incorporate all "unique" information from the lead into the body, and transfer/remove duplicate referencing. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the Lead summarized everything in the article without adding anything new. Will look into it... -Fnlayson (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of all the contributors who have improved the article, thank you for your review and suggestion. SynergyStar (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding citations, based on WP:LEAD#Citations it is decided on a case-by-case basis, but generally yes redundant refs should be avoided. I'll move some of the duplicate refs into the body. SynergyStar (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Article size

This article is now 78.5 k. Is there anyway it could be cut down to 77.7? Cause, I mean, how cool would that be? Lampman (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be pretty neat, especially as the 777th 777 has just been delivered, but right now to remove some 1,000 bytes would need some special thoughts on what to excise. It's a challenge...maybe if someone has time... :) SynergyStar (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review

The A-Class review for Boeing 777 has been opened today. All editors are invited to participate. Thanks for any input provided. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the request. I suppose there is now a one-month period for contributions. SynergyStar (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't know what the time limit is. The page only says "Reviews will be closed after a sufficient time has elapsed." I guess that would be after a long stretch of inactivity. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, I was however referring to Misplaced Pages:AVR#A-CLASS, the peer review guidelines which say that if the review request is inactive for more than a month, it can be archived. Hopefully there will some input before long. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up the notice on WP:Aviation's talk page. SynergyStar (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am happy for it to be rated as a A-class article and so have promoted it to one. Well done!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 1st June 2009.

(Review Department coordinator of Wikiproject Aviation).

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Mengus, A. "Boeing 777X". AirTransportBiz.com. Archived from the original on January 3, 2006.

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Engineering and technology good articles
• A-Class aviation articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles