<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>Airborne Surveillance Testbed – the Airborne Optical Adjunct (AOA) was built from the prototype 767-200, and later renamed the Airborne Surveillance Testbed (AST). Modifications to the aircraft included a large &quot;cupola&quot; or hump which ran along the top of the aircraft from above the cockpit to just behind the trailing edge of the wings. Inside the cupola was a suite of infrared seekers that were used to track theater ballistic missile launches in a series of tests.&lt;ref&gt;<strong><strike>[http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_981124a.html Boeing new release: ''</strike></strong><strong>{{Cite press release|url=http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_981124a.html|title=</strong>Boeing Airborne Surveillance Testbed Tracks Missiles With New Seeker]&lt;/ref&gt; The aircraft remained in storage at the Victorville Airport in California for a number of years before being scrapped in July 2007.</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>