<article_title>Boeing_767</article_title>
<edit_user>Sp33dyphil</edit_user>
<edit_time>Friday, January 21, 2011 12:14:15 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>ref fmt</edit_comment>
<edit_text>The Boeing 767 versions have a range of 5,200 to 6,590 nautical miles (9,400 to 12,200&amp;nbsp;km) depending on variant and seating. The 767 has been produced in three fuselage lengths.&lt;ref name=767_airport_report&gt;<strong><strike>[http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767.pdf &amp;quot;</strike></strong><strong>{{Cite url=http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767.pdf|title=</strong>767 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning&quot;]. Boeing, September 2005.&lt;/ref&gt; The original 767-200 first entered into airline service in 1982, followed by the 767-300 in 1986, and the 767-400ER in 2000. Extended range versions of the original -200 and -300 models, the 767-200ER and 767-300ER, have been produced with added payload and operating distance capability. The 767-300F, a freighter version, entered service in 1995.</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>