<article_title>Boeing_767</article_title>
<edit_user>Sp33dyphil</edit_user>
<edit_time>Friday, January 21, 2011 12:26:58 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>ref fmt</edit_comment>
<edit_text>The 767-400ER's closest competitor from Airbus is the A330-200.&lt;ref name=Flug767-400&gt;http://web.archive.org/web/20080513172529/http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/Frtypen/FR767400.htm (archived). Flug Revue online, March 4, 2002<strong><strike>. Archived: </strike></strong><strong>}} {{wayback |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20080513172529/http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/Frtypen/FR767400.htm|archivedate=</strong>May 13, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt; The 767-400ER is expected to be replaced in Boeing's line-up by the 787-9. As of December 2010, 38 Boeing 767-400ERs have been delivered, with 16 to Continental Airlines and 21 to Delta Air Lines, the variant's largest customer.&lt;ref name=767_O_D_summ/&gt;&lt;ref name=767_O_D_summ/&gt; A total of 37 of this variant were in airline service as of July 2010.&lt;ref name=Flight_2010/&gt;&lt;!-- Updates require a newer reference. --&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>Fnlayson<turn_user>
<turn_time>Friday, January 21, 2011 5:03:33 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>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. </turn_text>