<article_title>Boeing_767</article_title>
<edit_user>Sp33dyphil</edit_user>
<edit_time>Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:54:05 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Development */ ref fmt</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Boeing developed the higher gross weight 767-200ER (Extended Range) variant, the lengthened 767-300, and the longer range 767-300ER in the 1980s.&lt;ref name=Birtles_757-767-777&gt;Birtles 1999.&lt;/ref&gt; In the late 1980s, Boeing proposed a stretched version of the 767 and then a partial double deck version with parts of a 757 fuselage built over the aft (rear) fuselage.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.aiaa.org/sections/cl/what/mckinzie.htm &quot;How United Airlines Helped Design The World's Most Remarkable Airliner<strong><strike>&amp;quot;]. AIAA</strike></strong><strong>|publisher=AIAA|last=McKinzie|first=Gordon}}</strong>&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Norris, Guy and Wagner, Mark. Boeing 777, The Technological Marvel. Zenith Press, 2001. (Proposal was referred to by at least one airline as the &quot;Hunchback of Mukilteo&quot;, after a town neighboring the Everett assembly plant.)&lt;/ref&gt; These concepts were not accepted, and Boeing shifted to an all-new airliner that later became the 777.&lt;ref name=Birtles_Boe_777&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Boeing later developed another stretched 767 version in the form of the 767-400ER in the late 1990s.&lt;ref name=airliners.net_767-400&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>