<article_title>Boeing_767</article_title>
<edit_user>Sp33dyphil</edit_user>
<edit_time>Friday, January 21, 2011 12:34:12 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Variants */ ref fmt</edit_comment>
<edit_text>KC-767 – initially developed from the -200ER for the USAF's KC-X tanker competition, an effort to replace some of its oldest KC-135E tankers, the KC-767 was selected in 2003 and later designated KC-767A.&lt;ref name=DoD_4120&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; However the Pentagon suspended the contract due to a conflict of interest scandal and canceled it in 2006. Boeing subsequently offered the KC-767 Advanced Tanker, which was based on the in-development 767-200LRF (Long Range Freighter), rather than the -200ER.&lt;ref name=ap_20070212&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref name=boeing_KC-767Adv&gt;<strong><strike>[http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070212b_nr.html &amp;quot;</strike></strong><strong>{{Cite press release|url=http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070212b_nr.html|title=</strong>Boeing Offers KC-767 Advanced Tanker to U.S. Air Force&quot;]. Boeing, 2007-02-12.&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>