Talk:Boeing 747/Archive 2

message: There are some issues with this article that need to be resolved before it is promoted. I will outline them below.
1) Images
# The Air France photo's template has depreciated and must be replaced. 
# Consider moving the images around a bit instead of all having them on the right hand side. Also consider making a few of the images bigger. This would make the article more visually appealing. As it stands now, the images are so small, and surrounded by a wall of text to the left hand side.
2) Content
::There are a few things that need changes here.
# The 747-8 sections under 'Variants' repeats the information in the 'Future of the 747' section. There is no need to have this information twice in the article. I would eliminate the 'Future' and the 747-8 variant subsections and create a new section towards the end of the article discussing the plane's future. This would prevent the repetition of information
# I also find the 'Variants' section to be extremely choppy due to all the subheadings. I would recommend consolidating the subheadings into four sections: 747-100, 747-200, 747-300, 747-400 and 'Undeveloped Variants.' The 747-8 should be discussed in the future section. In each of these subsections, the additional variants can be elaborated upon using bold text. See the A380 article in the 'Design' subsection to see what I mean. Doing this would make the article flow better. The military section does not need to be changed.
# Eliminate the 'Facts and Figures' section - it is trivia under another name.
# Why are some of the footnotes completely italicized? The authors name and page number need not be italicized. Only the title of the work need be. Please change this.
# The 'Development' section should be split into a 'History' section and a 'Design' section. As it stands now, if I want to find out what the plane's design is, I have to go through the development section to find little snippets of information. There needs to be a place where the planes physical appearance and technology is summarized. See the A380 article to see what I mean.
# The paragraph at the end of the incident section is unreferenced.
After these changes have been made I will go through the article again to see if anything else needs to be done. If there are any questions, please refer to my talk page. Zeus1234 08:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Right, I already agreed it needs to have a Design section. -Fnlayson 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And I reverted this change, where's the dubious template? --Denniss 18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's seen on the image page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:540756.jpg It says: This template is deprecated by ((PermissionOTRS)) and ((PermissionOTRS-ID)). Please do not use this template anymore; instead, replace it with ((PermissionOTRS)). (parentheses changed to show the actual text and not the templates themselves).  Or at least it did when I saw it.  It has been changed since. Respectfully, SamBlob 03:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the only "problem"? Please read these tags more carefully in the future, that was only an informal notice about not to use the old OTRS template anymore for new uploads. It was easy t fix by using the new OTRS template. --Denniss 15:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've gotten in trouble for leaving the article on hold for too long (despite giving the list of extra demands - which is why I left it for so long), so I have no choice but to fail it as not everything has been completed. Zeus1234 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * I thought all comments had been addressed.  Oh well, so be it.. -Fnlayson 20:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: I was looking for GA quality articles that are not GA.  I saw this one with a lot of potential.  However, it was just denied GA days ago.  Therefore, I would like to hold off on GA renomination but I would like to improve the article as if it were for GA nomination or re-nomination. As far as general interest, the 747 generates more interest than the Dassault Mercure or Convair 880. Archtransit 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA renomination or just general improvement

message: I've replaced the Iran Air 747-100 photo with a PA 747-100 photo.  I am discussing it due to the possible sensitivites between the government of Iran and the US, which some may conclude is a swipe by an American puppet against Iran.  This is not the case.  The Iran Air photo is against very white clouds so the upper deck contour is hard to see.  The other photos in the article have a stretched upper deck.  The replacement PA photo clearly shows the original smaller upper deck as well as the few upper windows.  If one knows of a picture with a 70's PA or other livery, this might be even better. Or if one wants to compromise and use another 747-100 which clearly shows the upper deck and windows, then this is ok with me.Archtransit 18:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like a photo of a 747-100 with a GE90-115 engine? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having it available always is nice.  It could be a basis to start a paragraph of the 747 used as a testbed and/or used in a GE90 article.Archtransit 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll try to get a couple uploaded this afternoon. Also have one with a CF34 as well (talk about going from underpowered to overpowered!), if you like. Also, to make the story of the 747 lifecycle complete in the article, would you like a pic of a 747-100 getting ripped apart by a scrapper? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, pics have been uploaded to commons, if you'd like to use them. :Image:Ge-747-N747GE-020918-03.jpg shows 747-100 l/n 16 (ex-PAA, FWIW) with a GE90-115. :Image:Ge-747-N747GE-020404-01.jpg shows it with the CF-34. :Image:Co-747-N33021-040108-05.JPG shows a Continental 747-100 getting scrapped. Hope these help with the project! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Hey good placement of destroyed image.  I hadn't seen a good place to put it. -Fnlayson 00:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a good philosophical question.  Should everything be compared to the -100 or the previously designed version.  To me, it's not a clear answer but comparing to the previous version may be less unwieldy so it's a change that I'll make to the caption and article. Archtransit 15:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: photo change

message: Some of this may seem nitpicking, but it's part of my thought process.  I will be considering over the next few days some sentences, including:
:The 747 was born from the increase in air travel in the 1960s. (probably ok, see if citation exist, consider if cynical viewpoint, such as loss of C-5 competition was the cited factor in 747 development, see if Juan Trippe was the driving factor, etc.)
:Section:Development/background.  Joe Sutter (consider if this is neutral, should be incorporated as a phrase since too much weight given to the man, leave alone, etc.)
:Some of these problems with aircraft development, I will look at the citations to confirm they are objective.  So far, they sound ok to me.
:Entry into service subsection, Washington Dulles Int'l Airport is a new name, before it was called Dulles Int'l Airport, which caused confusion with Dallas.  Also in that section, mention of concern of fuel efficiency.  Shortages were a problem but was the 747 seen as inefficient, especially cost per seat mile?  Or was it just that traffic was down due to recession. 
That's enough for now. I also want to do some thinking to whether anything big was omitted.Archtransit 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After about 10 days, there's no heated opposition to the above so I'll follow the above discussion and delete the 2 incidents. Archtransit 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria 4: neutral

message: I noticed that the Specs for the 747-8 listed the same fuel capacity as the -400. Although it is supposed to be more efficient, I don't think it can go an extra 800 nm with 100k extra pounds on the same amount of fuel. Does anybody have a source on this?
cheers,
Mgw89 22:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  747-8 Fuel Capacity 

message: What about the China Airlines 006 Incident? on Feb 19 1985 a 747 was flying from Taipei to Los Angeles. they were ten hours into the flight at 41,000 feet when engine 4 was giving trouble and reving lower than it was supposed to. the crew got fixated on the problem and didn't realise the plane was going into a dive because of thick cloud. they thaought their attitude indicators were malfunctioning. when they realised they were in a dive the pilots tried to regain control of the aircraft by pulling back on the stick. the plane pulled +5G's and -3G's and two passengers were severely injured. At 12,000 ft they broke the cloud and at 9,600 ft they brought the plane back to level flight but their vertical stabilizers and elevators were not responding. they managed to land the plane at LAX on only engine power and their ailerons. The vertical stbilizers were badly damaged in the dive with at least 1/5 of each one ripped off. All the passengers survived. The problem was traced to jet lag and fatigue. During the past week the captain passed through over 15 timezones leaving him severely jet lagged.
Hornet94 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of analysis is certainly welcomed, at least by me.  There is not a clear cut criteria about what incidents are notable.  There was some discussion that hull loss makes it notable.  There are lots of incidents that, if included, would overwhelm the article.  One solution, if many more incidents are included, is to start a sub-article about incidents.  Even the current list excludes some hull losses, like the Flying Tigers crash in Malaysia. Archtransit (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say that the incident was not notable in the context of the Boeing 747 article, nobody died, the aircraft was repaired and the causes had nothing to do with a failure of aircraft or design. MilborneOne (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Tis incident is not notable, or significant to include here.  But the incident involves a 747SP and is already included in that wiki article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CI006 has been re-added but I removed it.  The article is already LOCE approved and being considered for FA.  It's best letting that take its course then we can be more free to add material.  CI006 was originally removed because hull loss seems to be the criteria for inclusion into the accidents list.  JL907 is a near miss of which there are many.  Consider starting a new article about 747 incidents and then one can link it to this article. Archtransit (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China Airlines 006 incident 

message: At least one editor is aware of my long term goal to get this article to GA.  Working my way up from the bottom, first from criteria 6 to 5 to 4, etc. and also working my way from the bottom of the article, the specification chart is next on my list (other users don't have to follow my own order of work tasks to be done).
Is the selection of variants correct?  Why not add the 747SP?  Why not delete the 747-400ER few of them were made for QF?  If included, the engine choice is not correct.  I need to check but I think QF ordered GE engines.  PW engines were offered but none ever sold.  Proposal: add 747SP, delete 747-400ER, make notation that the 747-8 specifications are projected, and don't mention the freighter versions so as not to make the chart too big.  Passenger versions get all the glory and reader attention. Archtransit (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specifications chart

message: Is it possible to add some photos of the 747 cabin?  It would be particularly interesting, I think to many readers, to see the interior, and for instance the difference between the spiral staircase on the -100 and -200 vs. the straight staircase on the latter models. SynergyStar (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cabin Photos

message: Up until now, I have tried to work with others for incremental improvements.  How about a moderate restructuring.
1. "Development" changed to "Early Development".  Development of models after 747-100 to be presented with the description of each variant.
2. Non-aircraft readers may benefit from bring a shortened "Design" section to after the intro.  Some of the design info can be moved to the variants.
3. The variants would cover A. what led to the design of the variant, B. How it is different, C. if notable, what were the few airline or leasing companies that bought it, D. other info.
Archtransit (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't agree with this Early Development thing.  The reader should be able to get a summary of how the 747 developed over the years without having to read the Variants sections.  I wanted to fill in from the early stuff to the recent developments.  Also, I think that's counter to the WP:Air layout guidelines. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I'd like to move the Undeveloped variants to the Development section and summarize them. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's entirely reasonable.  Should the development section cover all the variants?  I thought (misunderstood?) that you thought the variant sections should cover the development of, say, 747-300.  How about development of 747SP, 747-300, etc. be covered in the development section and more details in the 747-300 section, particular details about after it was launched?  If so, the 747-300 section, for example, would cover what was finally done (seating capacity, staircase, for example) and cover airline and leasing company sales, and when the last one was built (in the 747SP, it would be interesting because Boeing re-opened the line for a VIP to buy one). Archtransit (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the Development section should at least mention the main variants in a summary manner.  The details can stay in the variant sections like you're proposed (why, difference, & major airlines).  There's uncited content in the Variant sections that is probably covered by the Boeing 747 pages,  Airliners.net, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st proposal for restructuring to reach GA status

message: and 
Swissair was the launch customer for the 747-300, but the first plane was delivered to French airline UTA on 1 March 1983.Norris 1997, p. 63. 
First newly built -300 to UTA, not Swissair.  Not according to Boeing...http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/sevenseries/747.html
Will research. Archtransit (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sensible to have the -300 trijet information either in the development section, undeveloped variant section, or -300 variant section.  I prefer the first two over the latter as it may confuse the reader with the -300 trijet and the -300 or clutter it up.  I've tried to keep developmental history out of the variant section and into the development section, keeping the variant section to a description about what was built, when it was built, etc.  Will work on this tomorrow. Archtransit (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error? 1st 747-300

message: This may sound nitpicky, but there appear to be contradictions within the article. In the "entry into service section, it states that the -300 had improved engines over the -200. In the variants section, it states that the -300 offered the same engines as the -200. Does anybody know what's up? Also, the -400 section claims that it had an all new interior, when it inherited a few things like the straight stairs from the -300.
Mgw89 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Contradiction 

message: I've set up a personal goal of getting this article as the FA on the main page either on February 9, 2009 (40th anniversary of the 1st flight) or September 30, 2008 (40th anniversary of the rollout).  That means getting FA status a few weeks before that.
On the 747SP section, I deleted (at least temporarily) the part of the 747SP trying to compete with the DC-10 because they served different market segments and for lack of a citation.  Will consider puttin it back later, if possible.  Some minor rewrites including removing the part about that it was a shortened version of the -100 because it's really more than that (wing changes, vertical stabilizer changes, 45,000 lbs lighter (of which ony half of it is from less fuselage), etc.  The re-write of this section continues. Archtransit (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 747SP re-write

message: The basics are there, will need some editing, which I'll do today and tomorrow.  Any suggestions or edits that you think are out of place, let me know. Archtransit (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 747SR re-write

message: The basics are there with little need for rewrite.  I've added references and tweaked the sentences.  The main area of potential controversy is what is the thing called?  I'll presume that Boeing's terms carry the most weight.  They've called it the 747 Large Cargo Freighter, 747-400 Large Cargo Freighter, and said they gave it a new name of Dreamlifter.  I've never seen others call it the 747-400 Large Cargo Freighter (too long?).  Is Dreamlifter the new and only name?  Or is it 747-400 Large Cargo Freighter Dreamlifter?  If we stick with referenced named (after all, Wikipedia is all about references and not about our personal unsupported opinions), we will probably be ok.Archtransit (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 747 LCF re-write

message: There was a statement with a citation needed tag saying that the -500X/-600X weren't developed because airlines balked at the cost.  I couldn't find a citation.  I thought part of the reason for not developing the plane was because there was thought to be a larger market for smaller widebodied aircraft, which is different from the above reason.  I've deleted the reason as not necessary.  Most cancellation are a combination of factors, such as not enough sales for the development costs.  Only a few times are they technical impossibilities, like the V2500 Super Fan.Archtransit 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undeveloped variants

message: In progress.  I am rewriting this section in the same style as the -400.  Nothing major taken out except airline list. I am looking for references for some unreferenced statements in this section. Archtransit (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 747-200

message: Should we use "is" or "was"?  The article uses both.  Hypothetically....747 is an airplane.  The 747-200 had 4 engines. Or -200 has 4 engines? Archtransit (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably figured out my plan.  After the -200, I'll work on the -100.  After that, then the monster section in the beginning about development.  Some time, in between or afterwards, the grammar needs to be checked, like the "is" and "was".  The references need to be made uniform.  I have a new project that is due before the end of the month so I intend to go on partial wikibreak for 2 weeks starting today.  You know me, I'll still come by to edit a bit almost every day. Archtransit (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is or was?

message: I suggest a philosophical decision.  The design section would be about how the original 747 was designed (-100).  The other variant sections (such as -300, -400) discuss how the variant was different or improved.  Archtransit (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's not really a major change.  It's almost no change, really.  I think the design section is basically good the way it is with some very minor rewrite and/or adding references. Archtransit (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 747-100 and Design section rewrite

message: How about deleting the engine choices from the -100 in the chart.  The -100 was offered only with PW engines.  The chart doesn't say -100B, which there were orders from one customer for RR engines.  The GE engine was offered but never ordered.  So the proposal is that the chart list only PW engines.  (If a -100B column is added, which may be too detailed for WP, then RR and PW engines can be listed). Archtransit (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The range sentence is there just to hold it there temporarily.  I tend not to like to delete other's edits but rather to put it in the correct spot and then deal with it when re-writing that section.  Will fix the design part in a few days if not done already. Archtransit (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks.  Good work with the references.  I'll will add a range summary like I described above.  That'll give an idea of the improvements over the years. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specifications chart proposed change

message: In general, the section is good.  Part of a review is not only being critical about each sentence but thinking in a larger sense.  What is this section missing?  
One idea that might be added is the complexity of development.  There were not just engine problems.  On the other hand, the section is not to list a litany of problems.  Engineers on the project could probably list 50,000 problems. 
Nevertheless, building the plane was a highly risky undertaking for Boeing, both financially and technically. It stretched both airframe and engine technology. (a possible key phrase and idea for the article?  From http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Boeing_747/Aero21.htm)  Also noted in that source, "Safety was a top priority. If a 747 crashed, more people would be killed at one time than died in airplane accidents over an entire year. Boeing used a new method of spotting potential hazards known as "fault tree analysis," where engineers could easily see the impact of a failure of one part or system on other parts. The 747 became the first airplane to use this accurate method of forecasting possible trouble." Archtransit (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Development re-write

message: The -100, -200, and -300 sections have the unit "miles", while the -8 uses nmi and the -400 currently has nothing. We should probably standardize nmi, seeing as they are the default unit in aviation, and mention km in parenthesis.
Mgw89 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: We should decide on how to list references.  We should list it one standard way.  WP guidelines are that we can choose, no one way is better.
I think this way is much too cumbersome.  It takes so long to type.  
I like this way. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/12/09/space.shuttle/index.html
I wonder if this modification is acceptable. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/12/09/space.shuttle/index.html Retrieved 2007-12-09
I don't really like a title with a square pointer link because I want to see what URL (www.---.com) it is.
Fnlayson does a spectacular job of cleaning up references.  He names them, which is good for references used many times as long as the first time it's used, it isn't deleted by an editor. Archtransit (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good judgement! Not too hard to type, doesn't overwhelm the text when one is editing, clean looking.  That way we'll do. Archtransit (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: In the Entry into Service sub-section, there's mention of the first PA JFK-LHR flight.  That's sensible.  However, mention of other US airlines first flights may be regarded as US-centric, is not really too notable for the 747 article (but may be good for each airline's article).  Why not move to the airlines' articles.  
The 747-100 entered service on 22 January 1970 with launch customer Pan American World Airways on the New York-London route.[53] The flight was supposed to occur on January 21, but engine overheating made the original airplane unusable and it had to be substituted, creating a more than six-hour delay to the next day.[53] Pan Am added 747 services to London from Boston, Washington and other cities during the spring and summer of 1970.
Overnight, a new standard of air travel had been created and other airlines rushed to bring their own 747s into service. (Probably modify this sentence and add a reference) Trans World Airlines, Japan Airlines, Lufthansa, BOAC and Northwest Orient were among the first carriers to use 747s on long-haul flights. American Airlines started a 747 service between New York and Los Angeles by the summer of 1970, and in September 1970 added nonstop 747 flights between Washington and Los Angeles. Soon afterward American Airlines added a 747 service from Boston to Chicago and on to Los Angeles. In addition to its foreign destinations, TWA offered 747 flights between San Francisco and New York by early 1971.[citation needed] Archtransit (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of -- Airline flew --- to --- when the 747 first came out in 1970

message: The Boeing spec pages and airport list the GE CF6-45A2 for the -100 (available option I guess).  With these sourced listed as table references, there needs to reference(s) for data removed in some form.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did we catch Boeing with an error?  They may have listed the CF6 because they offered it. However, nobody ordered it.  How about a footnote if we do list it?  I can see a point for listing it and not listing it. Archtransit (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Boeing lists the available engine options.  Not worth their time to update airport report to unlist ones not chosen.  A footnote after engine or another reference in the Sources line should be fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine models in spec table 

message: So that we would fix references differently and have to redo work, we should agree on the reference style.  So far, I think we do agree with minor details.
1.  Is it retrieved 2007-12-10 or Retrieved 2007-12-10?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Web_sites_and_articles_.28not_from_periodicals.29 uses a capital "R".  (I used capital R then changed to small r, copying my esteemed colleague)
2.  We do seem to agree on this format, which is easy to type and informative. Program Milestones, The Boeing Company, Retrieved 2007-12-11  Which appears like this (number 7, ignore the others): Program Milestones, The Boeing Company, Retrieved 2007-12-11
References
* Alright.  It just doesn't seem like a word that should be capitalized, since Retrieved (& Accessed) aren't names like author or publisher.  Oh well, we'd better use what the policy page suggests for consistency. The Retrieved ones have all been been cap'ed. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100% but that's the way it is. Will work on refs tomorrow.Archtransit (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * The retrieved/accessed dates are for undated sources that may change, such as a web page.  If the source has a date, then listing that should be enough. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Well I've been reading through, I've deliberately not changed anything yet (or read the other informal peer review 1st, hopefully I'll spot some different things). Here's my comments:
- long haul - can this have a link? I'm not sure this is simple to understand for a non-English reader and I think the very start of an article should ease you in gently.
- 2 mentions of 'widebody commercial airliner' in 1st paragraph. can this be re-written so it is only mentioned once?
*Fixed Archtransit (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed (credit to someone else) Archtransit (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed (credit should be given to someone else!) Archtransit (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The way I initially read it was that Stamper was interviewing Trippe. I'm probably being stupid! JMiall₰ 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Archtransit (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Uh, the wording before that and the sentence before that too explained it.  Opposing is needed in the wording.  It is not design to land with 2 main landing gear out on one side. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I still don't get this. If you look at pallet you'll see that there are lots of different 'standard' pallet sizes (although they are all vaguely the same size). Also the 1st ref for this paragraph doesn't seem to work. JMiall₰ 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think standard containers, such as the LD-3 are what it being referred.  These standard containers can be off loaded a 747 and put on a connecting flight on another cargo aircraft.  Belly cargo on the MD-80 is non-standardized.  The standard container sizes don't fit.  I am replacing the word with container as this is the industry used term. Archtransit (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really. WP:NOT#TRAVEL is probably the right guideline to look at. JMiall₰ 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Listing Survivors or XYZ aircraft on display is usually done in a separate section per Wikipedia:Air/PC.  The point is only to tell the fate of the individual notable aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Informal Peer Review

message: In the Background and design phase it states that Juan Trippe, president of its most loyal airline customer Pan Am - not sure that most loyal is correct as Pan Am had bought from other companies including the Douglas DC-8. I could be WP:BOLD and change it president of an important Boeing customer Pan Am but just want to check opinions first. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pan Am

message: I see that there are some changes to this box.  I propose reaching an understanding over which operators are included.  Possibilities include:
1) The top 4 airlines that Boeing lists as taking deliveries of the 747.
2) The top 4 airlines according to number of 747 currently in their fleet.
1 is easy to source.  2 is more difficult.  2 is complicated by the fact that some airlines operate many used 747.  For example, UPS only ordered 3 747 from Boeing.  They have many used 747's (747F, 747SF, etc.)
Advice?
Archtransit (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox airline users

message: As a result of much improvement in the article and after discussion with another editor who edits this article a lot, I'm nominating this article for FA.  It is already an A class article, the step below FA.  Since becoming A class, it has improved substantially.  Wouldn't it be nice if this article were an FA and, as a result, featured on the main page for FA's at the 40th anniversary of the first 747 flight (2008)? Archtransit (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC in progress

message: An editor has moved some text to the Reference section so this section now has a footnote.  This is ok with me.  However, we should be mindful not to transfer too much text to the footnotes.  We should also never move text (especially objectionable or negative information) to the footnotes to hide it from readers. Archtransit (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes added to the Reference section

message: There is a suggestion in  to limit the number of images to only pertinent images.  To me, most of them seem logical.  If one is to be deleted, I think the UA 747 at DEN should be. Archtransit (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no hard-and-fast rule over the number of images to be used to illustrate an article. In the case of a major article, such as this, usually ten images suffice but having 17 images is still acceptable. One way to reduce the total number is to eliminate any redundant photographs; we have two images of the prototype series for example, three images of foreign users, etc. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Removing images of similar views of similar models would be the quickest and easiest thing to do. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UA 747-400 at DEN image has been removed.  Rationale: already has a 747-400 image.  I welcome further discussion if you think this choice is not good. Archtransit (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion to eliminate images

message: Two people have suggested an additional introductory paragraph.  I've split a paragraph that had 2 subtopics into two to partially address this.  On the other hand, it has been noted that the article is long and shouldn't get longer.  Any suggestions for the introduction might be noted here.  More discussion may be needed for the introduction compared to text later in the article because of the importance given to the beginning. 
I think that the splitting of the paragraph may have addressed this concern, at least partially.Archtransit (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: introductory paragraphs

message: I notice this is a FAC, and as references is one of my specialties, I took a look at it after seeing a note on someone's talk page about the reference section. It should be noted that Amazon.com is not a reliable source, and cannot be used, the customer reviews are used for reference #5 to verify information, this will need to be changed to a reliable source. Also, source #57, "movie ramblings" is not a reliable source, as it is a personal website of someone's own opinions. "Welcome to movie ramblings, where I attempt to analyse a movie in my own opinionated manner." Reference #173 is a foreign language site that appears to be a blog of some sort, and does not seem to be a reliable source, but if it is, then the language  needs to be added to the reference. The only other questionable source I saw was the flightsim.com site, but that might be overlooked given the context. 
:::::Inserted comment: #173 is a photo of the plane at a museum.  It's in a foreign language because it's in a foreign country.  The amazon.com reference simply shows that the 747 is called "jumbo jet" and the book is written by the past head of the 747 program.  If one doesn't like it, the reference can be deleted as there is another one listed for the same fact. Archtransit (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixing of these references is a high priority (or should be).  Reference 57 is a reliable reference to confirm that a 747 was part of the plot of the film.  The use of reference templates was discussed at great length and it was decided not to use it.  Part of the reason might be because others thought it made editing (and article improvement) difficult given the large number of references, many of them mid-sentence.  Template use is not a requirement as we checked during a lengthy discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archtransit (talk • contribs) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I realize the templates are in no way required, I do think that in this article, they would be exceedingly helpful to the reader, especially readers who are not at all familiar with aviation. Of course, that's only my opinion, and I do understand the issue of difficulty with editing, but since the article is now nearly fully developed, it might be worth reconsidering for the Featured step. I'm sure it wouldn't make or break a FAC, but it is certainly a nice thing to have done with such a great article. Ariel♥Gold 18:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that in no way, was my comment on the this talk page, nor on Archtransit's page meant as any kind of insult or slight, but they seem to have been taken that way, so my apologies. I was looking for a FAC that could use some help, and I guess that my comments were read in a way I did not at all intend. My apologies, and good luck with the FAC. Ariel♥Gold 18:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * I'm sorry for misunderstanding your point on EL. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC and References 

message: Shouldn't this be moved to become the first para of Further developments? --JCG33 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Entry into service - last paragraph

message: If you put the following remarks, sorry for taking them out.
*Entry into service section, City of Everett prototype removed.  It's not related to the 747 christening by Pan Am.  The City of Everett 747 is also listed near the end of the article under museums. Archtransit (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sorry for removal

message: User:Bzuk was right about my accidentally deleting the American First Lady link, and that was a good catch. I should explain that my concern was the bumping together of multiple wikilinks. Visually they are not separated, and this makes it hard for a reader to instantly see  where one link stops and another begins. Re-casting the First Lady sentence to visually separate the links would be a good idea. I have noticed some other examples of this link bumping in the article. For example, in the "Entry into service" section, McDonnell Douglas and DC-10 are bumped and linked. You could drop the McDonnell Douglas link to fix this, but you might prefer to re-cast the sentence. Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlapping links 

message: In the "Further developments section, a sentence reads: "Two Airbus customers signed additional 747-8 orders;[82][83] two customers cancelled their A380 orders, and several launch customers deferred delivery or considered switching to the 747-8 and 777F aircraft." The word "considered" is a bit odd because it's not clear what effect that would have on actual orders. Maybe "or switched" would be better, if factual. Or maybe the sentence could end after the word "delivery." I'll leave this one for you to decide. Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Considered?

message: I've worked my way through the whole article and made many changes, virtually all small. If I accidenally distorted the sense of the content in any place, please revert the change. This is a complicated article, and it's extremely unlikely that other editors will find nothing to improve. I'd suggest that you find at least one other editor or proofreader to go through everything again to get the article as polished as possible. Finetooth (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting done