<article_title>Boeing_767</article_title>
<edit_user>SynergyStar</edit_user>
<edit_time>Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:32:15 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Design */  expand</edit_comment>
<edit_text>The 767's design offers a twin-aisle configuration of 2&amp;ndash;3&amp;ndash;2 in economy with the most common business configuration of 2&amp;ndash;2&amp;ndash;2. It is possible to squeeze an extra seat for a 2&amp;ndash;4&amp;ndash;2 configuration. However, this seating is cramped and therefore uncommon.&lt;ref name=Haenggi_p34&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; The 767 has a seat-to-aisle ratio in economy class of an efficient 3.5 seats per aisle, allowing for quicker food service and quicker exit of the airplane than many other jetliners, which typically have four to six seats per aisle in economy class.<strong><strike> In the cargo hold, the fuselage width allows for only one row of standard [[Unit Load Device]] containers to be carried.&amp;lt;ref name=Haenggi_p29/&amp;gt;

[[File:Japan Airlines 767-300ER Economy cabin.jpg|thumb|right|767-300ER economy cabin with Boeing Signature Interior]]</strike></strong></edit_text>
<turn_user>SynergyStar<turn_user>
<turn_time>Friday, January 21, 2011 3:21:12 AM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Help with ongoing peer review</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>User:Sp33dyphil started a peer review for this article. Check on the page and help make improvements suggested. Thanks for any help. -fnlayson (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC) This article should be ready for a GA review after this. It is too big of a hurtle to go straight for FA. -fnlayson (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Overall, seems to be pretty improved, and I think worthy of GA consideration. The prose is generally consistent, the article is factually verifiable, has broad coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated. The review was helpful in illuminating issues to improve. One difference though, captions have been trimmed for spacing. For further work, a key issue but nitpicky/cumbersome is consistency of referencing (which I have gone through many times on other articles, fortunately some bots now help out). Retrieved by dates, italics on "Flight Global" vs. "Flight International" etc. US style vs. EU dates. For higher status that needs to be worked out. Besides that issue, perhaps there are areas where claims could be challenged for refs, the prose improved or flow bettered, but that varies by reviewer. SynergyStar (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC) I list Flightglobal.com or Flight International depending on which is listed on the article page. I believe FI is listed if the article appears in the print magazine. -fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>Overall, seems to be pretty improved, and I think worthy of GA consideration. The prose is generally consistent, the article is factually verifiable, has broad coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated. The review was helpful in illuminating issues to improve. One difference though, captions have been trimmed for spacing. For further work, a key issue but nitpicky/cumbersome is consistency of referencing (which I have gone through many times on other articles, fortunately some bots now help out). Retrieved by dates, italics on "Flight Global" vs. "Flight International" etc. US style vs. EU dates. For higher status that needs to be worked out. Besides that issue, perhaps there are areas where claims could be challenged for refs, the prose improved or flow bettered, but that varies by reviewer. </turn_text>