<article_title>Boeing_767</article_title>
<edit_user>Sp33dyphil</edit_user>
<edit_time>Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:55:55 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Development */ ref fmt</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Following the first delivery to United Airlines in August 1982, the 767-200 entered airliner service on September 8, 1982, with its first flight from Chicago to Denver.&lt;ref name=Eden_p102/&gt;&lt;ref name=Haenggi_p31-5&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Delta Air Lines commenced service with the CF6-powered 767-200 on December 15 of the same year.&lt;ref name=Eden_p102/&gt; Deliveries to mainline U.S. carriers American and TWA followed.&lt;ref name=haenggi_p38&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; The 767's service introduction was relatively smooth, with few technical issues, and greater operational reliability than prior aircraft.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; The 767 received early international orders from Air Canada, All Nippon Airways, Ansett Australia, Britannia Airways, Egyptair, El Al, Ethiopian Airlines, and Transbrasil.&lt;ref name=haenggi_p38/&gt; The 767 was approved for U.S. CAT IIIb instrument landing operation in March 1984. This revision permitted operations with minimums as low as RVR 300 (Runway Visual Range 300 meters). The 767 was the first aircraft certificated for CAT IIIb by the FAA.&lt;ref&gt;<strong><strike>[http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v04%20ac%20equip%20&amp;amp;%20auth/chapter%2002/04_002_001.htm </strike></strong><strong>{{Cite web|url=http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v04%20ac%20equip%20&amp;%20auth/chapter%2002/04_002_001.htm|title=</strong>FAA Order 8900.1 Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS), Volume 4 Aircraft Equipment And Operational Authorizations]. FAA, September 13, 2007.&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>