<article_title>Boeing_767</article_title>
<edit_user>Sp33dyphil</edit_user>
<edit_time>Friday, January 21, 2011 12:37:56 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Variants */ ref fmt</edit_comment>
<edit_text>E-10 MC2A
The E-10 MC2A was to be a 767-400ER-based replacement for the USAF's Boeing 707-based E-3 Sentry AWACS, E-8 Joint STARS, and RC-135 SIGINT aircraft. This included an all-new system, with a powerful Active Electronically Scanned Array and was not based on the Japanese E-767 AWACS aircraft. One 767-400ER aircraft was produced as a testbed for systems integration. But the program was canceled and the prototype was sold to Bahrain as a VIP transport in January 2009.&lt;ref&gt;<strong><strike>Sarsfield, Kate. [http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/27/321681/bahrain-acquires-767-400er-testbed-for-vip-use.html &amp;quot;</strike></strong><strong>{{Cite journal|last=Sarsfield|last=Kate|url=http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/27/321681/bahrain-acquires-767-400er-testbed-for-vip-use.html|title=</strong>Bahrain acquires 767-400ER testbed for VIP use&quot;]. Flight International, January 27, 2009.&lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>Fnlayson<turn_user>
<turn_time>Friday, January 21, 2011 5:03:33 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>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. </turn_text>