<article_title>Boeing_767</article_title>
<edit_user>SynergyStar</edit_user>
<edit_time>Thursday, January 20, 2011 5:17:14 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Design */  autoland</edit_comment>
<edit_text>The original 767 cockpit design, shared with the 757, uses six Rockwell Collins CRT screens to display electronic flight instrumentation.&lt;ref name=norris_p18/&gt; The displays are used for electronic flight instrumentation system (EFIS) and Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) information, taking over the former role of the flight engineer.&lt;ref name=norris_p18/&gt;<strong> From its introduction, the 767 was equipped with an [[Autoland|automatic landing]] system for low-visibility conditions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://airchive.com/html/memorabilia/boeing/1979-boeing-767-launch-brochure/8138|title=Boeing Boeing 767 Launch Brochure|year=1979|accessdate=January 20, 2011}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;</strong> Shared cockpit design and design commonality with the 757 allows pilots to obtain a common type rating to operate both aircraft, with 767 and 757 pilots able to share the same seniority roster.&lt;ref name=norris_p18/&gt; With the 767-400ER, the cockpit layout was simplified further via five liquid crystal display (LCD) screens, and adapted for similarities with the 777 and the 737 Next Generation.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;</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>