# Talk:Concorde

I am concerned that this article does not meet the good article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:

At over 13,000 words, it is recommended at WP:TOOBIG that the article length be reduced. Some of this material can be spun out (or removed because they have all ready been spun out) or reduced as too much detail.
In relation to the above, there are some sections that are too long. I recommend that each section have a maximum of four paragraphs.
The lede, at 5 paragraphs, is longer than the recommended 4 paragraphs at WP:LEADLENGTH.
Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I share your concerns. I had a quick look and can see scope for some major pruning. John (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)


### Concorde
The article doesn't explain why it was retired. It mentions the famous crash in the lede, but that's not a sufficient explanation. There have been many crashes of other passenger jets and that didn't lead to the entire model being retired. Was it cost? Bad PR? Changing markets? Surely it must have been a controversial decision -- where is the discussion? 90.155.34.28 (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

See this previous discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Concorde/Archive_4#Reason_for_retirement
Also see this The Times article: https://www.thetimes.com/article/ba-chief-blames-french-for-killing-off-concorde-jb9v0xd5hj6 which says that Airbus decided they'd had enough of supporting an aging aircraft and it couldn't fly without their support. Lord Marshall (BA CEO at the time) told The Times: “Concorde can’t keep flying unless the manufacturer is willing to go on producing the parts. Airbus said they were not willing to support Concorde beyond the end of October. We might well have considered continuing if they hadn’t. It would have made it much more difficult for Airbus if Air France and BA had presented a united front in supporting the continuation of scheduled services.”
I agree the reasons should be in the article. Shimbo (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Is covered at Concorde operational history#Retirement. The text was moved there recently due to prose size/Good Article review, following Wikipedia:Summary style. In larger articles look out for sub-articles, this one is linked under the header of the operational history section, these sub-articles are also usually linked in the manufacturing company navbox at the foot of the page. In Template:BAC aircraft the entry is 'Concorde (Operational history/histories/aircraft on display). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Good point about the sub-article. I think the operational history section in this article is a little too brief though now. Summarising a quite substantial sub-article into one sentence is a bit drastic.
There would be room for a paragraph-length summary, surely? It does say in Wikipedia:Summary style that "The parent article should have general summary information like a lead, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article." Shimbo (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Feel free to add your summary. It is becoming more the norm to have no text at all in these sections with main article links (Template:Main), forcing the reader to make a single mouse click to read more and removing the problem that something might have been left out. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add a couple of sentences summarising the sub-article. Shimbo (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

" …It was fatal Butt, a company named BOOM SUPERSONIC Is making a new concorde. … "
I think the article should be rolled back to the latest decent state.
80.57.254.133 (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The vandalist's edit has been reverted. Just so you know, you too can revert his edit. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Revert or undo bad edit(s) and try to deny recognition. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
News on the BOOM XB-1 is reported here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
And there is a Wikipeadia article about it here: Boom XB-1. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Might belong in "See also". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I broke this section into 2 subheadings. Both previously reported accidents involved rudder separations, and I learned recently there were 6 such occurrences in total, though four of them were not reported by BEA or AAIB as accidents. So I added a bit about them to the incidents section along with mention of the elevon separation in 1998. Some occurrences in the Incidents section might qualify as accidents, but I didn't see clear documentation of it. The 14 June 1979 incident at Dulles is referred to as an "accident" once in the BEA's English translation of their accident report on the crash of 4590, but not consistently, and the word is not used as far as I can tell in their report of the 1979 incident itself. (It's in French and not searchable. The title of that report uses the word "incident", and throughout the text that I've read I've only seen the word "incident" used.) I also got rid of a cit that was an opinion letter and replaced it with RS and more precise language. E.g., the 57 tire events came out of the BEA accident investigation, not the Continental court case, and most of them were not blown tires or takeoff occurrences.
Please look it over for stupid mistakes and for UK writing style. I'm American, and I tried... (spelling tyres with a y? feels so wyrd!) Dcs002 (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)