<article_title>Boeing_767</article_title>
<edit_user>Sp33dyphil</edit_user>
<edit_time>Friday, January 21, 2011 4:38:48 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>US dates</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Through the 1990s, the Boeing 767 became commonly operated on medium- to long-haul routes, and the aircraft has ranked as the most widely used airliner for transatlantic flights between the United States and Europe.&lt;ref name=airl_777&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; The aircraft is regarded as an ETOPS pioneer, being the first to receive 180-minute approval by the FAA.&lt;ref&gt;{{Cite web|title=The Pioneer of Extended Operations (ETOPS)|publisher=Boeing|url=http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/back/back5.html|accessdate=<strong><strike>20 January</strike></strong><strong>January 20,</strong> 2011}}&lt;/ref&gt; There have been over 1,000 Boeing 767s ordered with over 990 delivered as of 2010.&lt;ref name=767_O_D_summ/&gt; The -300/-300ER models are the most popular variants, accounting for approximately two-thirds of all 767s ordered.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; There were 863 Boeing 767s in service with over 40 airlines as of July 2010.&lt;ref name=Flight_2010/&gt;&lt;!-- Updates require a newer reference. --&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>