This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Boeing 787 Dreamliner was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Boeing 787 Dreamliner at the Reference desk. |
The article currently states "Boeing 787 has been involved in one aviation incident". It's not clear from the article text which of the various incidents is being counted as the "one aviation incident". Is it the NH-692 battery fire? — RockMFR 14:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Given Boeing's engineering problems for the 737 MAX, the recent quality-control problems for the 787 seem significant enough for the lead, especially given the years of reporting covering quality issues for the 787. Indeed, the 787 stands out among Boeing planes for the number of whistleblowers fired over quality and safety objections. The quality issues for the 787 have also prompted the FAA to investigate basic production and quality processes across Boeing. Including a brief mention of these problems in the lead provides a more well-rounded description of the 787 as a whole. A number of planes have already experienced a second grounding due to these issues. Must the FAA ground the entire fleet again to warrant a mention in the lead? Please clarify the bar for significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:10A1:2E80:C587:ED7C:7B1F:62A7 (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I removed the following self-evidently POV material:
The deletion was reverted by Marc Lacoste (talk) - no reason given in the edit summary.
The statement is self evidently POV, and the CEO is equally self evidently not a Reliable Source - because not independent. Now, I have no idea if the claim is true or not, but if it is true we need a NPOV RS, and if it contested then we are giving undue weight to one side of the argument, and none at all to the other side.
Grateful for views. Springnuts (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
References
no reason given in the edit summary: this is not true, I stated "not hidden" in the edit summary, in response to your edit summary "POV statement" as the POV of Boeing's CEO was clearly labelled as that, so it was not hidden. As explained by Fnlayson above, it is possible to quote people with an opinion if it's clearly stated, and it's a good thing Wikipedia can quote both sides. See WP:NPOV and WP:quote. If you want an other side of the story, you can search for that, for example in disappointed customers who could seek a compensation. It happened after the 737 MAX groundings. It may have happened for the 787, but I don't remember.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Looking at its date it is not about the operational incidents at all - it pre-dates them all. So, I moved (here: [[1]]) the statement into the flight test programme section. I also amended slightly to clarify that in so far as the Boeing CEO can be a reliable and non-POV source, he is so only for Boeing products. I hope this is all OK with y'all. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the tweak. Still, on its own it is a defensive response to ... well what? It needs context, otherwise it’s stuff. I’ll have another look at the sources. Springnuts (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
According to this - if I read it correctly - [[2]] deliveries are not going to start again until November. But I understood deliveries were resumed in March? Springnuts (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for confusing rollback and re-rollback - and thanks to those who have worked on this section. I did restore the timeline as it breaks up an otherwise rather bitty large block of paras. Springnuts (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I've visiting Seattle, and a local said they are no longer being built in Everett, only in the non-union South.
True? 199.36.255.20 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Brochure:
The initial 186-foot-long (57 m) 787-8 typically seats 242 passengers over a range of 7,355 nmi (13,621 km), with a 502,500 lb (227.9 t) MTOW compared to 560,000 lb (250 t) for later variants.
The stretched 787-9, 206 ft (63 m) long, can fly 7,635 nmi (14,140 km) with 290 passengers; it entered service on August 7, 2014, with ANA.
The further stretched 787-10, 224 ft (68 m) long, seating 330 over 6,430 nmi (11,910 km), entered service with Singapore Airlines on April 3, 2018.
The words are different, and if that's not already enough, the order is different, too.
Terse and boring, but also dryly and efficiently informative (as trimmed of duplicate units for my own notes):
The 787-9, stretched to 63 m, flies 7,635 nmi with 290 passengers; it entered service in August 2014 with ANA.
The 787-10, stretched to 68 m, flies 6,430 nmi with 330 passengers; it entered service in April 2018 with Singapore Airlines.
We really should strive as hard as possible not to sound like a Boeing press release. Not that glowing PR is a bad thing, but it's readily available concerning this sensationally charismatic megaproject dreamchild everywhere else. — MaxEnt 17:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
A while back this article was removed from the "Good Article" list because it didn't meet certain criteria. I don't see any specific reasons why it was taken off of the list even though the remark states that there are. Dose anyone else see any specific reasons that were given why it was taken off the list?
The 787 is an iconic, and in a lot of ways historic airplane, and there has been a lot of time and effort put into the article. I've been working to improve it and hope others will work on improving this great airplane's article. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)