The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 20:31, 10 July 2011 [1].

---

Airbus A330[edit]

Airbus A330 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a part of my master plan. I want to see the article through FAC at soon as possible, so I can get on with other things. Thanks in advance to any contributors. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the rules at WP:WIKICUP and indicate if this is a Cup nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Cup nomination. Sandy, I don't know the point of this exactly. Sp33dyphil ^Vote! 21:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, original nomination. This article has been substantially rewritten while at FAC, and each time I look, there are more issues. Now we find a table with hidden text in the Background section-- against MOS:SCROLL. Nikkimaria should indicate if sources and citations are now clear, after several changes, and I'm uncertain if images are clear after several changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've spent many hours on the article, left long reviews before restart, and am up to speed on current version.TCO (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review was done by Fallschirmjäger on 21 June, with problems addressed. Unless there are new images, doing another one dosen't seem necessary. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• "Each wing also has a 2.74 m (9 ft 0 in) tall winglet instead of the wingtip fences found on earlier Airbus aircraft." - source?

• Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in how multiple authors/editors are notated

• Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in what is italicized when

• Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 59: check date capitalization

• Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When information like page number is provided in the source, it's good to include it
• FN 84: Airbus isn't a work (so shouldn't be italicized), but is the original publisher

• Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 8: check page number
• Retrieval dates aren't required for convenience links to print-based sources (like Amazon)

• Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when - for example, why is Flight International linked in FN 59 and not 55?

• Removed Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reuters India or India Reuters? Check for small inconsistencies

• Reuters India. Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 95: Flight Daily News should be italicized

• Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 108: check formatting

• Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare formatting on FNs 124 and 126. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of 5 sources

• "the 41,600 L (11,000 US gal) fuel capacity increase was possible through the adoption of the centre section fuel tank" vs "The fuel capacity increase is gained by adopting the 41,600-litre centre section fuel tank"

• Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 115 and 119 are the same source, but it only supports the material cited by FN 119. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• File:TLS_factory_7413v.jpg: France does not have freedom of panorama. Before restart TCO mentioned having started a discussion at Commons regarding this image's copyright status - did anything come of that?
• File:A330-200_conversion_to_A330_MRTT.jpg: in what country was this image taken? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The French factory picture is fine. The policy for France requires an artistic component. Functional buildings from afar as part of a setting are fine. All the commentary at Commons said what I expected as well. If I were at all unsure, would just chuck it into Deletions to provoke a closer look amd keep us safe, but this is not even needed.TCO (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Think MRTT pic is from Spain (Iberia Airlines has its maintenance facilities in Barcelona and Madrid) and pic is likely fine regardless of nation given the pose, but have requested more input given the concern: [2]

It is from Spain. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Comment. I checked the text in the Development section against text in the Norris & Wagner book and no close paraphrasing is present. I'd support too, but that would be questioned. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am inclined to agree with Fnlayson. I would express my view that this is one of the better aircraft articles to be produced, but as my opinion is neither respected or judged as valid, there is little point in announcing my support, as my position would just be belittled. I would hope that situation to change. Kyteto (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can both support if you like, so long as you declare any relevant CoIs and, if necessary, clarify on which criteria you are supporting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - My original unstruck comments (pre-restart) still stand. I believe it should quick fail on criteria 1e (stability) ...it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Stability normally applies to edit wars as it says but in this case there are prolific article changes that have not been asked for at FAC and there appears to be no end to it. No reviewer has a hope until the number of changes stabilise to a normal level of minor copy editing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Would prolific article changes that have not been asked for at FAC be an actionable change (excluding locking the page)? Also, for reference, could you state your original unstruck comments? Sorry, I just found the link to the pre-restart nomination. Micromann (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible that this FAC will close in less than two weeks? I'm working on a number of a potential FA articles at the moment, planning to nominate them as soon as this FAC closes. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When a FAC is promoted, the nominator may immediately nominate another. When a FAC is archived, the nominator must wait two weeks before nominating another. Please see WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't know about FAC policy, Sandy would have to tell you definitively, but if there are no rules against it perhaps you should withdraw this and list another one, to alleviate Nimbus' concern, then relist this one after your others go through. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandy restarted this TO deal with "that it had changed during previous review session". For Speedy, I do not recommend a sudden submission of another article. We need to do more ahead of time to make the next article ready for FAC. To learn from this FAC and make sure the prose and ref formatting is better to start with. Let's concentrate on A330.TCO (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The next article I'd like to nom for FA is YF-23. I'll do more ahead of time to save from a long an d winding FAC. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.