Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 777/archive1

Boeing 777

I am nominating this article because I fully believe it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. I have read this article, and am fully assured of it's quality, and, without reservation, am satisfied that the article Boeing 777 is featured content.N734LQ 08:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose refs are inconsistent and badly formatted. See Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) for an example of good ref formatting.Rlevse 11:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support : Article meets requirements. It is comprehensive, well written, accurate and neutral. -Fnlayson 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — it's a decent article, but I have a few issues:
- The lead section is not capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article. Instead it contains an entire paragraph of unsourced speculation about the Y3 project and a discussion of CATIA, neither of which are discussed in the body of the article.
- There are too many single-sentence paragraphs in the article body.
- I'd like to see more coverage of the design and flight testing phases of the triple-7.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree on points of refs, grammar seems very techie in places, specs table is horrendously ugly to look at (mustard and grey!). a single full spec for one variant and a cut down table for comparsion between the various variants would be tidier. There are other obvious bits of tidying and tweaking to be done first.GraemeLeggett 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd mean 2 or more tables and more confusion. There's nothing basically wrong with the Spec table. Similar ones are used for many other airliners. I could do with some of the rows myself, but other editors want them. -Fnlayson 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]