<article_title>Boeing_767</article_title>
<edit_user>Sp33dyphil</edit_user>
<edit_time>Friday, January 21, 2011 12:14:15 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>ref fmt</edit_comment>
<edit_text>File:Second United Parcel Service N309UP Boeing 767-34AF SJC.jpg The 767-300F is the air freight version of the 767-300ER, first ordered by UPS Airlines in 1993 and delivered in 1995. The 767-300F can hold up to 24 standard 88&amp;nbsp;inch by 125&amp;nbsp;inch pallets or containers on its main deck and any combination of up seven or pallets or containers.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; This model has two doors on the main deck plus three on the lower deck. The two upper doors comprise of one for the crew and one for the cargo. Of the three doors on the bottom, two are on the right side, and one is at the rear left side. In October 2007, All Nippon Airways sent one of its Boeing 767-300s to ST Aviation Services Co., in Paya Lebar, Singapore, to undergo the world's first 767 PTF (Passenger To Freighter) program. The conversion was completed, on schedule, in June 2008 and designated as a Boeing 767-300BCF, or Boeing Converted Freighter.&lt;ref&gt;<strong><strike>[http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q4/071128c_nr.html &amp;quot;</strike></strong><strong>{{Cite press release|url=http://boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q4/071128c_nr.html|title=</strong>Boeing and ST Aerospace Complete Door Cutting For First 767-300 Boeing Converted Freighter&quot;] (JA8286). Boeing&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Three vendors now offer passenger-to-freighter conversions of the 767-300: Boeing, IAI, and Wagner Aeronautical.&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>