<article_title>Boeing_767</article_title>
<edit_user>Sp33dyphil</edit_user>
<edit_time>Friday, January 21, 2011 12:01:29 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Development */ ref fmt</edit_comment>
<edit_text>The 767 sold very well from the late 1980s to the late 1990s, with a decrease during the recession of the early 1990s. During this time it became very popular as the most common airliner used for transatlantic operations between North America and Europe.&lt;ref name=airl_777/&gt; After strong sales in 1997, sales have declined significantly because of the economic recession of the early 2000s, increased competition from Airbus, and the recent emergence of a direct replacement program, the 787. In early 2007, UPS Airlines and DHL prolonged the 767's production with orders for 767-300 freighters of 27 and 6, respectively.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070215c_nr.htmll. Boeing, February 15, 2007.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070308a_nr.html. Boeing, March 8, 2007.&lt;/ref&gt; By August 2008, Boeing had received two orders that year for the 767-300ER,&lt;ref&gt;[http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm Boeing Orders and Deliveries<strong><strike> Chart]. Boeing. Retrieved: </strike></strong><strong>|publisher=Boeing|accessdate=</strong>August 9, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt; but Boeing has been offering versions of the 767 to tide customers affected by the 787 launch delays, specifically to Japanese carriers All Nippon Airways and Japan Air Lines.&lt;ref&gt;&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>