I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently put a lot of work into this article. It's current;y B-class, but I think its almost ready for a Featured Article nomination. I just need a few fresh eyes to catch anything I haven't.

Thanks,

Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 737-200 maiden flight for United: should you reference the airports? I'm not sure the Gerald R. Ford International Airport was named that before he was president. It might be easier and clearer to readers to simply say the cities involved. --Born2flie (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   • Yeah, it originally had the older airport names, but I changed it them because they linked to a redirect. I'll change it to the cities. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. The paragraphs in the Development section seem a little "thin". It may just be me. --Born2flie (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   • They're divided up due to subject changes, but I'll try to rearrange or expand them. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. The table for specs is daunting. I didn't even begin to decipher beyond the fact it tried to include all major variants. --Born2flie (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   • Most large airlines (See:Boeing 747) have a specs table of this type. A whole can of worms can, as has been, opened on this subject before. Should it perhaps be limited to -100/-200 and have -300/-400/-500 specs move to Boeing 737 Classic and -600 and later move to yet to be created 737 articles? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     • My personal preference, is to use the most representative variant or most popular. In the case where there is clearly a difference between all the variants, the "most representative" to me would be the initial prototype and the most current variant, but either way I prefer a choice of two variants portrayed in the specifications format that is the current consensus within WP:AIRCRAFT. Perhaps this should be a discussion or some sort of collaboration between WP:AIRCRAFT and WP:AIRLINES. Again, this "How?" is simply my personal preference, and the issue should probably be discussed on those appropriate wikiproject talk pages and the article's talk page. --Born2flie (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     • Yep. There are multiple variants (600s to 900ERs) in production now. So there's not really a most current variant, although the -900ER is the newest of them. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the city names work better, and I like the edits to the Development section. That section now seems less fragmented in reading. I can live with the table if that is how Airlines works it. I'd say put it up for A-Class review and lets keep this one moving forward. --Born2flie (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could the production table be moved in to the deliveries section, renaming that section 'production and deliveries'? There is a lot of white space in the variants section and it might then be possible to align the variant photos with their text paragraphs. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are my comments and are suggestions.

• Where practical move info from Variants sections to Development and Design section. I think someone should be able to read the Dev section and get an overview of the aircraft history and variants.
• Maybe add another subsection in Development to allow for more details to fit in.
• I think the spec table is OK, except it has too many rows/measures. The -100 is listed for comparison purposes, I believe. I think US customary units should be first for a US product (been meaning to do this actually).
• It would help if something was done with the Aloha Flight 243 crash image. The accident is not listed because it is not recent. Adding it would open up adding incidents in the 1988-2004 time period though. Maybe added a Major accidents section for it (best idea I have). (Credit Archtransit for pointing this out.)

That's all I can think of now. I'll try to help with these. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move most of the data and rewrite the Variants section as prose, like the the B-17 article. The development section is being rapidly expanded, and will soon (probably) have another section. I'll also add a section on the Major accident, and use the Aloha image. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We had external links scattered throughout the article, ive changed/am in the process of changing these for references
• I dont know if it would be better to change the refs for ((cite web)) and use something similar for the books - At least once for each book, to give ISBN/similar references.
  • I just noticed they are at the bottom of the reference section —Reedy Boy 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The photo gallery in "Newer variants" to me makes the section look a bit strange. Yes, the images are useful, but in a gallery...? If so, it wants moving

—Reedy Boy 18:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The gallery is a good comparison of the old vs. new cockpits, but I'm not sure where else to put it. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but it just looks out of place/the gallery makes them look a bit "big" —Reedy Boy 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A significant aspect of the 737 under the "design" section states "citation required" (in relation to the primary flight controls). Although the stated information is true and correct (yet presented in a simplified manner), we are presented with a difficult situation in the case of Boeing products. Their technical data is proprietary, unpublished, copyrighted information, so although I have access to all of this information there appears to be no legal way it could be made publicly available through wikipedia. Any constructive comments on this?