<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>The Boeing 767 has 1,044 orders, with 994 of those delivered as of December 2010.&lt;ref name=767_O_D_summ&gt;http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardreport.cfm?cboCurrentModel=767&amp;amp;optReportType=AllModels&amp;amp;cboAllModel=767&amp;amp;ViewReportF=View+Report, Boeing, December 2010. Retrieved: January 11, 2011.&lt;/ref&gt; Delta Air Lines is the world's largest 767 operator, with 101 airplanes as of 2010, consisting of 767-300, 767-300ER, and 767-400ER variants.&lt;ref name=Flight_2010/&gt; On January 10, 2011, Boeing announced that it had begun final assembly of the 1,000th 767, a 767-300ER for All Nippon Airways,&lt;ref&gt;<strong><strike>[http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&amp;amp;item=1579 Boeing Press Release, </strike></strong><strong>{{Cite press release|url=http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&amp;item=1579|publisher=Boeing|title=</strong>January 10, 2011]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; making the 767 the second wide-body aircraft to reach the 1,000-unit milestone after the 747.&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>