Jump to content

Talk:Airbus A320 family/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

New generation

Comment on Airbus A320 family initial section paragraph three. The issue is with the duel reference use of “new generation”.

Original follows:

In December 2010, Airbus officially launched the new generation of the A320 family with the A320neo "New Engine Option".[8] The new generation offers a choice of the CFM International LEAP-X or Pratt & Whitney PW1000G, combined with airframe improvements and the addition of winglets, named Sharklets by Airbus. The aircraft will deliver fuel savings of up to 15%. Virgin America will be the launch customer for the aircraft in spring of 2016. As of December 2011, a total of 1,196 A320neo family aircraft have been ordered by 21 airlines, making it the fastest ever selling commercial aircraft.[9]

The initial “new generation” refers to the December 2010 launce of the A320 with the New Engine Option. The name of the new generation is A320neo.

The next sentence says the “new generation” offers new items of airframe improvements, winglets named Sharklets. The paragraph then expands the development by mentioning fuel savings. The paragraph then says this version will launch in 2016.

The use of “new generation” to describe the 2016 updated A320neo is confusing with the “new generation” of the 2010 Airbus. New language should be added to indicate that additions were made to the “new generation” 2010 version without calling it “the” new generation.

Suggesting:

  • Further improvements were made to the A320neo……which were….
  • The 2010 A320neo was further improved by the addition of………

Companies do release upgrades to make minor releases of without a name change and possibly this is one. That is the 2010 got up graded to be A320neo. The still newer updates of Sharklets & etc may still be called the A320neo but the way the original paragraph reads is confusing as is. A “new generation” made in 2010 and soled many units isn’t the same “new generation” of 2016. Trouts2 (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)trouts2

Bit confused by your points, the "new generation" is the A320neo which was launched in 2010 for delivery from 2016 is the same thing, December 2010 was just the program launch. I have tweaked the words slightly to make more sense. MilborneOne (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Spam Advert complaint

This article appears to be some UNDUE Airbus promotion, e.g., the only remotely critical content is the last section mostly limited to a wikilink to an extra page about a dozen accidents, a valid reference for the last incident (which was no accident at all, and therefore not really cititical) was removed here and again on the accidents page. The overall layout with "operations" and "operational history" separated by "variants", which should be a part of "design", is confusing. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The article follows the standard aircraft article layout of the WP:AIR/PC guidelines. And spam is not the same thing as being overly promotional of the topic, which the article as a whole is not. - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Airbus A320 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sidestick controller in pic

The first cockpit photo text says, "Note the side-stick controller..." The side-sticks are not visible in the picture, being located behind the pilots on the respective outboard sides. Uninformed viewers might think that the visible controls in the centre are the "side-sticks" when in fact they are engine controls.--Death Bredon (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I have removed the comment as the side-sticks cant be seen. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus A320 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Airbus A320 family/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernamen1 (talk · contribs) 05:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

CLOSED
As stated yesterday, the review has been closed. Further comments will only confuse matters, since the nomination is back in the nomination pool, and a new review will start on a different page. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am not formally reviewing the article at this point but make the following comments. These points are made from the standpoint of an informed reader, not as an experienced GA editor.

1. Air Inter photo makes more sense to be located near the text where the A320-100 is described.

2. photo of double bogie Indian Airlines A320 is desirable.

3. Airbus A320s sold to Chinese airlines scheduled for delivery between 2009 and 2012 are being assembled in Tianjin, China.[49] is in the present tense but a reference should be located to allow a past tense to be used. May be difficult to find.

4. A section on where these planes are made would be useful. I do not know the answer. Before, I thought the A320 was assembled in Toulouse and the A319 and A321 were in Hamburg but are they now jumbled and made in both places. Also A318's info would be useful to the reader.

5. Deliveries in chronological order, not reverse order is preferred by the non-aviation reader.

6. Should confirm that "family" is the typical term and not series or other word.

7. Use of the word "Mobile, Alabama" makes the article look American-centric because of the lack of country mention.

8. What is so special about this plane. It might be the side stick controllers. Or maybe that the computer will prevent an unstable maneuver, unlike Boeings.

9. There may be a brief section on the A320neo rather than relying solely on a redirect.

10. Optional, but of possible interest to the readers are the routes that push the limits of the airplane. It is used transatlantic by Air Canada and LCY-SNN-JFK.

11. Someone should get a hold of the Norris and Wagner book to check on the article. Either that or the editors who used it should vouch for the lack of copyright violations. That book is used extensively for this article

Good luck. Some of these points may prove very difficult to meet so a discussion could take place to consider not considering some of them after a while Usernamen1 (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Usernamen1, please read the GAN instructions page. If you aren't going to do a full review of the article, you should not be opening a review page as you've just done. Because you have done so, you are the reviewer of record, and should review based on the actual GA criteria.
If you don't wish to do a full review of a nomination but wish to make comments, there are two paths. The first is to post to the article talk page basically what you've just posted here. (It could be copied over if you'd like.) The nominator should see them there, and can edit the article accordingly while waiting for a willing reviewer to show up. The second is to wait until a reviewer opens a review and then post your comments to the review at that time.
Please let me know what you'd like to do at this point. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I am reluctant but willing to be the reviewer. If so, I will attempt to do a faithful and thorough job. Someone, even BlueMoonset, should ask me and I will do it. Usernamen1 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Usernamen1, thank you for the offer, but I will not be asking you to be the reviewer. I hadn't realized how new you were to Wikipedia. GA reviewers should have significant experience of Wikipedia and of article editing in particular. You opened this review on your sixth day editing on the site, which is far too soon. Please give it another few months and get a sense of how the GA nomination and review process works—perhaps you could work on an article and get it to the point that it can be nominated for GA—and then see if you want to give a GA review a try. At this point, however, it would be premature to do a review. Instead, I will be putting this nomination back into the pool of unreviewed nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note for reviewer- I have just done the copyvio search on this article, and it says the lead section was copied from a YouTube video. This appears to be the other way round. The YouTube video has the text of the lead paragraph in the video description and appears to be cut and pasted from here, as the video was published in February this year, and the lead section was written before then. Please take this into account.Thank you Class455 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am so sorry for confusing the process by adding comments. I am afraid that no reviewer will step forward because of that. Because of that, I will reluctantly attempt to do the GA review until a regular comes by.

The disqualifying criteria are: What cannot be a good article?

Stand-alone lists, portals, sounds, and images: these items should be nominated for featured list, featured portal, featured sound, and featured picture status, respectively.

Disambiguation pages and stubs: these pages cannot meet the criteria.

Featured articles: a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article. Accordingly, demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality.

  • Green tickYI certify that, based on my review, the following disqualifying criteria are not met thus concluding that no disqualifying criteria exists for this candidate article. Usernamen1 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Immediate failures An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as quick failing)[2] if, prior to the review:

1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria.

2. It contains copyright infringements.

3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include ...

4. The article is not stable due to edit warring on the page.

  • I certify, based on my review, that #3 or #4 criteria are met. I have not done a review of #1 yet and do not see gross violations of #2 but believe that this criteria should be further considered. Usernamen1 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Six criteria

  • Well written:

the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[3]

  • Verifiable with no original research:[4]

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[5] all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[6] it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

  • Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[7] and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

  • Green tickY Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Green tickY Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[8]
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images:[9]

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[10]

  • I certify, based on my review, that 2 of the 6 criteria meet the requirements and have been marked as Green tickY. I am optimistic that the other criteria have been met or almost met but would need further review to make such certification. Usernamen1 (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airbus A320 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Breaking up

User MilborneOne suggested to me to break up the article Airbus A320 family into smaller daughter articles, such as Airbus A321, Airbus A319 and Airbus A318. I think this should be considered because the article I'm working on right now is pretty big – that's before my work is done. Any comments about this? Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion started at WT:WikiProject Aircraft#Break Airbus A320 family up into separate articles for anyone interested. This article would remain and there would be separate articles on the main models in the A320 family (A318, A319, A320, & A321). The family article would probably shortened after all the splits are done. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The A318 page looks good so far. If we're going to have articles on all the variants, it might be better to move this page (Airbus A320 family) back to [Airbus A320]], and not have a separate overview/family article. The A320 is the first model anyway, and all the others are variants of it, so this should be fairly logical and intuitive to readers. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks MilborneOne for starting us off with the A318 article. I would be in favour of a standalone Airbus A320 article (in addition to A319 and A321 of course), but would propose keeping the separate Airbus A320 family article which could be used to summarise the family development / timeline, with appropriate links to the standalone articles. SempreVolando (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if the A320 model should be covered in the A320 family article or in its own separated article. Maybe that should be put off until after the A318, A319 and A321 articles have been split off. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's keep things simple. Wait for my myriad of edits on this page first, before creating daughter articles, because it can get messy. Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 07:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that a split can go far, because there is so much commonality between the variants. Yes, the "parent" article is long, but if some content was hived off to child articles but (quite reasonably) it retained content that's common to all variants, or to the programme as a whole, plus the briefest mentions of each variant before wikilining to an article on it... then the parent article would hardly be much shorter. And the single A320 label belies some substantial technical changes partway through the programme - I daresay the difference between a current A320 and the first one to roll off the production line is greater than the difference between current A319 and A320. However, if A318, A319 &c variants get their own articles I think it's reasonable & consistent to have one for the A320 variant. bobrayner (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we can merge the article, Airbus A318, into this article.Maodi xn (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Airbus A319 now has a dedicated article. Two down, two to go. There may be several chunks of this article which can now be cut out and the A319 article referred to instead. SempreVolando (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Airbus A321 now added too. SempreVolando (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Numbers

Houston we have a problem with Airbus A320 family now added! "As of 31 December 2016, a total of 7,353 Airbus A320-family aircraft have been delivered, of which 7,033 are in service. In addition, another 5,645 airliners are on firm order." This is a common mistake in numbers after a break up, mixing A320ceo and A320neo families. As we now have two separate articles, i guess we need to decide weather if going to count together or separate production numbers. Gotech8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

in Boeing 737, there are 9,335 produced as of last Dec 31. (not just the 1,125 originals), 1,988 Boeing 737 Classic, 6,455 Boeing 737 Next Generation and a few Boeing 737 MAX prototypes (note: 1125+1988+6455=9568?!). The coherent way should be to count every A320 in the present article, including the neo, and specifically A320neo numbers in its own article. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Marc is right in that this is an overview article for all of the A320 variants and should show the totals of 319/320/320neo/321, perhaps like the others it may be time to break out the A320 ceo into a sub-article like the other variants. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This isn't the case for the 737 : there isn't a Boeing 737 original. Creating an A320ceo family would make too much honour for a low importance Backronym (not really a backronym but you get the point), I'm not sure it will still be used in 20 years. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lufthansa Airbus A320-211 D-AIQT 01.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lufthansa Airbus A320-211 D-AIQT 01.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 22, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-02-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Airbus A320
A Lufthansa Airbus A320-211 taking off at Stuttgart Airport, Germany. The Airbus A320 family, consisting of the A318, A319, A320, and A321, pioneered the use of digital fly-by-wire flight control systems and side-stick controls in commercial aircraft. Since the 1980s, a total of 7,442 Airbus A320-family aircraft have been delivered, of which 7,122 are in service. The largest A320 fleet is that of American Airlines, with 380 aircraft.Photograph: Julian Herzog
Archive – More featured pictures...

CSD

For goodness sakes, why in the world is this listed in "candidates for speedy deletion"? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not now. That was probably vandalism; we should follow WP:Deny recognition. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Airbus A320 family/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I am going to give this article a Review for possible WP:GA status but I have three concerns going in:

  1. Firstly, the article was nominated by someone who has not worked on the article in any large capacity. As a matter of fact, I think they edited this article once, so do the major contributors really have the time or inclination to work through a Review?
  2. Secondly, this article is truly massive and it is going to take me quite a while to get through it - please be patient with me.
  3. Thirdly (and last), I would very much like to get my Review done before the end of March since I am participating in the most-recent GA Cup. If no one responds within a day or two to the queries I am going to shortly post, then I will probably abandon the Review - I cannot do this in a vacuum. Thank you, Shearonink (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

NOTE: This Review is on hold until one of its editors can explain the large commonality (98.7%) score it received between this article and http://www.skytamer.com/Airbus_A320.html. (To see the comparison just use the Copyvio Detector in the GA Toolbox). Shearonink (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Class455: This commonality/possible copyvio needs to be dealt-with/corrected/fixed/researched. I don't know if these other sites lifted content from here or vice versa or what but an uncomfortable amount of passages are exactly the same or too close for comfort (there is also a 75% score for globalaircraft.org/planes/airbus_a320.pl.) It might be possible to do a wayback machine search to see what the oldest saved URLs of these other websites were like, to see which came first WP or these other two websites. I'll continues to work on the various sections but I cannot possibly pass this article to a GA status until this is all resolved. Shearonink (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Shearonink: - Its the opposite way round. The site you've linked credits Wikipedia as a source, if you scroll to the bottom, so they have cut and pasted information from here. I've also seen a few YouTube descriptions which came up on the Copyvio detector back in August, but its pretty clear it was cut and pasted. The other website you have put (globalaircraft.org), the page seems to have been deleted, as when I pasted the link it came up with a 404 error. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Class455: Ah, thanks for clearing that up - I missed it on the page. I might put a note into the headers about the commonality actually originating from the WP article & not the other way around to forestall any possible future issues. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    I am working my way through the entire article in order, but, so far so good. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Referencing issues:
    Ref #9 seems to be dead - it goes to a general page, rather than a specific page.
    Ref #14 has gone dead. Or something.
    Ref #100, 103 are invalid - all of the airbus.com cites have changed.
    Ref #102 has gone dead. Shearonink (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
     Fixed - I have replaced the deadlinks with new sources. I also had to amend the content which was backed up with dead reference 100 so that it matched the new source I added. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    Ok,thanks. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Class455: Please see 'References' section and 'A320' section below. Shearonink (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Very stable, gets some editing flurries but I was unable to find any recent edit-warring. Shearonink (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    One image - File:A32XFAMILYv1.0.png - has a parameter that states it is the uploader's own work & I am not sure that this is so. Please investigate its status - it looks very similar to another image that I saw on the Airbus website. Shearonink (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    I have investigated this, and I cannot find any image on the internet which matches the uploader's work, so I'd rule out a copyvio here. I also checked to see if any other files which have been uploaded by the same person had been tagged for deletion. One was listed at Commons requests for deletion here but this was kept. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    I must have seen some similar artwork/drawings in my reading - I consider this matter dealt-with. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    The same user created numerous other airliners 3-way drawings, with the same style for different manufacturers. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    What a lot of work both Class455 and Marc Lacoste have done to adjust the content to the Criteria. Great job pulling everything together - Congrats it's a GA.
    Thinking toward future improvements, I do think the references need to be brought into agreement with each other - there are some almost-bare URL refs that should probably be filled out a little more completely (as in 'cite book', 'cite web' or whatever). There are 4 in the "A320 Enhanced family" section, 1 in the "Overview" section, 1 in the "A319CJ" section, and 1 in the "Freighter" section. Shearonink (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Going forward, as soon as the commonality issues are dealt with, I will be going through the entire article in order. It is so massive that I think I will only be able to do one entire proofing-readthrough so I am going to take my time. Each section will be posted down here in order, as I come to the section in the article, along with opinions & any issues I have found. After I have gone through the entire article, I will then go over it and assess if it fulfills the various GA Criteria. Shearonink (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Lead is well-written, lays out the claims for notability, and doesn't devolve into trivia. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Development

Good prose, statements are all referenced. Good-to-go. Shearonink (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Origins

No issues found. Shearonink (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Design effort

I am frankly amazed at how well-written this article has been so far - yes, this article is massive but good job on the prose and the sourcing at every turn. This section passes muster. Shearonink (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Fly-by-wire flight control system

No prose issues, grammar is nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Engine

Grammar, punctuation, prose - A+. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Production and introduction

@Class455: There are a few issues with this section:

  • UK, France and West Germany wanted the responsibility of final assembly and the associated duties, known as "work-share arguments", driven by, apart from money, prestige.
This sentence seems oddly-phrased - too many commas, difficult to follow its sense. Please adjust and rephrase. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In 2009, Airbus required about eight months to build one A320.[45][verification needed] The Toulouse Blagnac final assembly line builds A320s; Hamburg Finkenwerder A318, A319 and A321; Tianjin, China assembles A319s and A320s; and A319s, A320s and A321s are assembled in Mobile, Alabama.[46] Airbus produced 42 A320 per month in 2015, and expects to increase to 50 per month in 2017.[47]
The tenses of the verbs in this sentence are mixed-up with each other. It is referring to 2009 but then implies that these statements are still true. There is also a maintenance template "verification needed" that I missed on my previous readthrough. The issues this template mentions will have to be corrected before any further work can be done on this Review. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, @Shearonink:, I shall rectify this by tomorrow morning at the latest. I've had a short look through in the meantime and I will have a look round for a source to back up the verification needed tomorrow morning, if not then I'll remove or reword the sentence. With the other grammar fixes, I'll also do this tomorrow when I have a clearer head. Is that okay with you? Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds fine. I do have some other obligations the next few days but I will pick away at all the sections and get through them as soon as I can. Regarding editorial matters on a GA Review - the way I look at it is you're the writer and I'm the editor and I'll try to stay out of the way of the creative process unless it's a matter of the GA Criteria. Shearonink (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 In progress Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 08:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 Fixed - I had to remove the area tagged by the [verification needed] template, as I don't believe this was true myself. If anyone does find any more verification on that part then they are welcome to re-add it. Other than that I have fixed the grammar. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 09:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Stretching the A320: A321

@Class455:No issues with prose/punctuation/grammar - all good. I am having trouble pulling up Ref #56/www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Shrinking the A320: A319

No issues found - prose/referencig/grammar/punctuation all look good.

Second shrink: A318

A-ok, all GA Criteria fulfilled in this section.

A320 Enhanced family

This sentence comes out of nowhere:

  • Since 2007 the cabin was fitted to more than 600 aircraft as of March 2009. Airbus says it offers better luggage storage and a quieter cabin, packaged with a more modern look and feel.

The previous paragraph was all about the Sharklet wing-tips and then suddenly the cabin-changes are mentioned. The cabin changes need to be more fully-developed in their introduction to the article. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 In progress - Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 Fixed - I have created a small introduction for the cabin. The introduction in 2007 is already supported by the source in the next sentence so hopefully that shouldn't be too much of an issue. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

New Engine Option: A320neo

@Class455: At the end of the first sentence there are five references listed - this is a little bit of a case of Citation overkill. There are two ways to deal with this issue:

  1. Some of the references could be deleted - after all, an article only really needs one reliuable source for any assertion. or
  2. The references could be bundled as in WP:CITEBUNDLE which works like this - examples from Casualty (series 30):

Alicia returned in the final episode of the series, broadcast on 30 July.[1] Alistair Brammer made his first appearance in episode fourteen, broadcast on 5 December 2015, as receptionist Jack Diamond.[2]
Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Sources:
    • Reilly, Elaine (14 September 2015). "Chelsea Halfpenny: 'Casualty reminded me why I left Emmerdale'". What's on TV. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
    • "Casualty star Crystal Yu: 'Lily's blanked for bullying Alicia!'". What's on TV. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
    • Dainty, Sophie (29 July 2016). "Chelsea Halfpenny IS coming back to Casualty for good and she's "so excited and humbled"". Digital Spy. Retrieved 29 July 2016.
  2. ^ Brown, David (2 October 2015). "Casualty: autumn and winter 2015 plotlines revealed by executive producer Oliver Kent". Radio Times. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
 In progress Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 Fixed - Removed 3 out of the 5 sources, two of which were from books. Also, my mum's a big fan of Casualty . Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Design/Airframe

@Class455: No issues = prose/grammar/punctuation/references all look good, but please see following sections. Shearonink (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Design/Flight deck and avionics & Engines

Only problem found here is a maintenance template - "citation needed".

  • With the exception of the very earliest A320s, most can be upgraded to the latest avionics standards, keeping the aircraft advanced even after two decades in service.

The issue raised by this template needs to be addressed. Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I rewrote it with more neutrality from a PR ref, checked the other refs and reordered the section : [1] --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Operational history/Competition & Replacement airliner

Prose/references/grammar/etc - everything is within the GA Criteria.

Variants/Overview

A-ok. Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A320

I think most readers will be unfamiliar with the terms single-bogie and double-bogie in regards to these aircraft. Comment. There are two sentences in the article that do not appear to be specifically sourced. In this section:

  • The direct Boeing competitor is the 737-800.

and in the next section, "A321"

  • Its direct competitors include the 757–200 and the 737-900/900ER.

I know that in the lead this sentence appears:

  • The aircraft family competes directly with the 737 and has competed with the 717, 757, and the MD-80/MD-90.

plus this referenced statement appears in the "Shrinking the A320: A319" section:

  • It would provide direct competition for the 737–300/-700. [Ref 57].

It seems to me that this sentence or phrase needs to be directly referenced within the main article text. .Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to "closest competitor" (more neutral) and added a ref.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A321

Generally looks good, but see notes within "A320" section. Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

done--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A319CJ, A318/Freighter

Everything seems fine. Prose, punctuation, grammar, referencing - all look good Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Operators/Orders and deliveries/Accidents and incidents/Specs/Engines

All of the information in these sections is referenced from reliable sources. Grammar/prose/punctuation all look good.

One issue is the list of 5 citations at the end of "For the entire A320 family, 91 aviation accidents and incidents have occurred, including 35 hull-loss accidents with a total of 1,392 fatalities as of May 2016." I think this is a case of WP:Citation overkill. There are two ways of correcting this problem: 1) remove some of the references or 2) cite bundle them. As soon as I find a good example of this, I'll post it here. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Duh, never mind I already covered Cite-bundling up there somewhere ^^^ in a previous post, please take that advice and apply in this instance as well. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Done, checked and updated.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Some of the references are incomplete and lack date., access-date, publisher. The following refs need some work:

  • Ref #52 - incorrect title
done--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref #82 - incomplete (publisher, etc)
done--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref #95 - incomplete
  • Ref #97 - incomplete
both done --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 106 - incomplete - lacks publisher, date, access-date, etc.
updated before--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref #119 - incorrect name "National Geographics"
removed before --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The first occurrence of a cite within an article is when the complete/full cite is used. Afterwards the cite is characterized as <citename/>. So far as I can tell all the multiple instances in this article have incorrect usage for the multiple-cite references, including the following:

  • <ref name="Airbus_Orders">{{Cite web |url=http://www.airbus.com/company/market/orders-deliveries/ |title = Airbus Orders and Deliveries |work=Airbus |date=28 February 2017 |format=xls |accessdate=6 March 2017}}</ref><ref name="Airbus_Hist_OD"/>
This cite's first occurrence should have this complete info.

The following also have this issue:

  • Ref #17
  • Ref #4
I'm not sure to understand what you mean. WP:REFNAME doesn't specify we should have the complete citation at its first occurrence. The "Orders and Deliveries" ref is a good example, it's in the #Orders and deliveries section because it's where it's the most useful : when it is updated, it is used by the editor to update the OD table with the ref available in the edit preview.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think all of the refs that have multiple usage within the article need to be gone through to make sure that they comply with the WP:MOS, I know there is some WP guideline somewhere about this but can't find it at the moment. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:DUPCITES? I replaced harvard refs used only once by inline refs. I didn't found any duplicates by scanning rapidly, but didn't used a tool.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the "first use" ref-statement I am thinking of is not a guideline/policy but a "should" kind of thing and now I can't find it but it's not a guideline so nevermind - moving on. Shearonink (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tables

All look good, nice job. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Almost done

As soon as the above open tasks are addressed - References, A320, Operators/Orders and deliveries/Accidents and incidents/Specs/Engines (cite bundling), Design/Flight deck and avionics & Engines (citation needed template) - I should be able to finish up this GA Review within a day or two afterwards. Shearonink (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I think I have it all done, you will tell. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste and Class455: Done. Thanks for all your work. Shearonink (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus A320 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2017

This is not a supersonic aircraft. The references to it as such should be removed. BrianHawkins (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. It was vandalism that went unnoticed. --McSly (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

New page for A320neo

Is it time now for a new individual page for the A320neo? The 737 MAX has its own page and the A320neo is more evolved than the MAX (and has more orders). It would be really useful to see an order table for the 'neo'. Bthebest (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably so. It needs to have details on the neo itself and not just about each and every order and commitment announcement. I have not see much detail on it in Aviation articles though. Start by expand the New Engine Option section here. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Looking at available sources, if this were some totally independent product it would probably have got its own article by now, going on source-count alone (wikipedia has no shortage of 3-sentence stubs). However, we already have this article as a convenient incubator and it would be counterproductive to create a stub at this stage when it fits so neatly into the existing A320 story. How about building a basic order table/list into the existing NEO section, maybe flesh it out with a few more sentences of prose and perhaps even some kind of image, then it'll be worth splitting out into a separate article. No? (oops - forgot to sign this - bobrayner (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC))
So when is the new page beiing started? Im happy to work on the page, but im quite bad at making a start as i am quite new to writing and editing in wikipedia Njirk 14:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with the honourable Fnlayson on milestones; but it's probably better if we improve our content here - the existing article is a convenient incubator - and then split it into a separate article when it has a bit more depth and breadth. No?
Njirk, if you need a hand with anything in particular, just ask! But in the meantime don't be afraid of adding content and sources &c. bobrayner (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Heyy Bob! Need a little help here, i tried to start an article about the a320, still in the basic forms, copied the lay-out a little bit, but when do i know that other people can see my article? its on this site now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Njirk/A320neo Njirk (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a good start. I have made some minor changes - hope you don't mind. Some more thoughts:
  • Airliners.net is probably not a reliable source. Was this from the a.net forums or from some copy of a press release?
  • Don't focus too much on a "conventional" image of an aircraft. Other images can be helpful too. If the vendor releases a computer-generated image and we can get the licensing right, that's OK but other images (specific components, assembly facilities, graphs, launch ceremonies, or even gantt charts) can improve an article too.
  • You might find this source useful. bobrayner (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Generally, I'm happy keeping the A320 page as an overall family overview but think an A320neo page as well would be very useful. Njirk's page looks like a good start and I will try to add to that where I can. Bthebest (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Support nothing new to add other than what people have previously said. --JetBlast (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I am missing the NEO deliveries accounted for in the A320 _family_ page. This is not the A320CEO page. ZwergAlw (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus A320 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: rename article

Proposal: rename the article, yes or no.

If there is support for yes, rename it, then it can be decided what to rename it. Some possibilities include "Airbus A320 Family" as this is what Airbus uses for the title of a webpage. http://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a320-family.html Nobody uses "Airbus A320 family" except Wikipedia, as far as I can see.

Another possibility is to name it "Airbus A320" because nobody uses "Family" much. If you ask a pilot, "are we on an Airbus A320 Family", they are going to think you are crazy. If you ask "are we on an Airbus A320", the pilot may answer "yes" or "no, A319". In support of "Airbus A320" is Airbus' own website where the introductory sentence is "The A320 is one aircraft in four sizes (A318, A319, A320 and A321) meaning it is the most successful and versatile aircraft family ever" http://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a320-family.html Vanguard10 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"If there is support for yes, rename it, then it can be decided what to rename it.", avoid this step and propose a new name already, with Template:Requested move (I won't support it though)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a productive comment. Maybe we should think what we want first. The current title "Airbus A320 family" is the worse. Even "Airbus A320 Family" is better. There is a possibility of "Airbus A320" based on Airbus' own reference to the series as the A320. See "The A320 is one aircraft in four sizes (A318, A319, A320, and A321)." The bad part is that Airbus didn't consult Wikipedia, ha ha. If so, there might have been the A320-100, A320-200, A320-300, A320-400, A320-500, where the A318 is the A320-500. Then the naming of the article would be simple. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
just propose what you want.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
"Family" is an official name. It is used by Airbus. Airbus doesn't use "family". I hate Airbus for putting us Wikipedians through this. See [[2]] Vanguard10 (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. However, the original request was quite malformed. We should tighten the discussion.

A fundamental question should be whether or not the title "Airbus A320" should be used. I see the following points:

No, not Airbus A320 because

  • The A319 is three nineteen, not three twenty. Therefore, it shouldn't be "Airbus A320"
  • This could cause Wikipedia confusion because the A320 article would be about the series, not just the A320 variant, while the A318 article is about the specific variant.

Yes, Airbus A320 because

I currently do not have a strong opinion yet. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Often in Wikipedia, there is inadequate discussion and someone puts a box around the section to end discussion. Let's keep this open at least a month or longer. Whatever, the decision is ok with me as long as it's not wild (like changing the name of the article to Boeing). Vanguard10 (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • One month (or two) from when this started discussion started would be more fitting than from some arbitrary later date. But these type of discussion rarely need to go that long. -Finlayson (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the original intention is that seperate articles will eventually be written on each of the series (the A318 and A319 have been done) and this will be an overview of the development of the "family" hence the name. Wikipedia is always a work in progress! MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Not a bad plan. Should A320 potentially have its own article separate from the A320 family article? I think it potentially should. Potentially as in not an automatic delete if one is started. If there is a reasonable A320 article started then I think the discussion about A320 family would likely conclude unless there is a user who feels strongly that there should be a discussion between A320 family and A320 Family. Vanguard10 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Rant (possible merger)

I still think it was a mistake to break up the A320 article into the 318/319/321. This is not done for the variants of the Boeing 737 Next Generation (-600,-700,-800,-900) or the MAX (7,8,9,10), which are similar to the A320 family in that they are merely stretches or shrinks. Also, currently the A320neo article is not split, whereas the A320ceo is, which is not consistent.

I think it would be better if the A318/319/321 were merged back into this. I'm not going to do anything, just want to make a suggestion. ElshadK (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Retroactively branded as...

I think the article lead should include a mention of the fact that the original A320 has been retroactively rebranded as the A320ceo following the introduction of the neo. Something like: “The Airbus A320 family, retroactively branded as the Airbus A320ceo family, consists of short- to medium-range...” ElshadK (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure the branding has been that retrospective, although it is used by Airbus it is not that widely used but it is already covered in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The name "Airbus A320 family" actually covers both A320ceo and neo lines. This article replicates that with the neo details mainly covered in the A320neo split off article. The wording in this article seems to match this. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Main image

if you have not already noticed, I have changed the main image of the A320 in the top info box. the reason I did this is because I thought that the old Lufthansa A320 image being used was a very dirty looking plane. so I replaced it with a cleaner looking image of a Lufthansa A320 that will match the other heading images of the other A320 articles. I am aware that this new image was in use in the Lufthansa Flight 2904 article, so I switched that image with the old image that was in use, if you prefer the old image, feel free to change it back. this is just an experiment to see which image people prefer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:200:F9A:F9CC:5828:1040:D1A1 (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A320 redirect

Airbus A320 redirects to Airbus A320 family. It seems that it should more specifically target Airbus A320 family#A320 instead, which it did until this edit by Feminist (I realize it's a couple years ago, and that there has been discussion about family vs. individual aircraft). Is it OK to change the redirect to the more specific target? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Same goes for Airbus A320neo, which redirects to Airbus A320neo family, but I believe should target the more specific Airbus A320neo family#A320neo. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Why? A320 is both the variant name and the family name. I don't see an issue with not linking to the sections in these cases. - BilCat (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I second BilCat, linking the redirect to the variant would be confusing.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The article lead contains more information about the A320 than the specific A320 section. feminist (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Easyjet in Primary users infobox section

There's a comment in the infobox saying EasyJet is divided in EasyJet Ltd (130 A320s), EasyJet Europe (136 A320s) and EasyJet Switzerland (28 A320s): it can't be listed as primary user, added by Wind of freedom in [3]. Is there any consensus for this? As far as most readers are concerned, Easyjet is effectively a single airline; the fact that it operates under three AOCs is a mere technicality. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that multiple AOCs should not prevent to group easyjet as a single entity. When I book a ticket on their website, I don't care which AOC will fly me. When Airbus sells its airplanes, the delivery AOC is irrelevant in the negociation.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
We talk about "user" and the user is not the brand but the airline with an AOC. Easyjet is both an airline brand and an UK AOC, but the brand is not the user, the user is the airline AOC. --Wind of freedom (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I think we editors understand the nuance, but the brand is not just painting on the side: it's the parent company of the AOC holders. Maybe a footnote explaining the nuance would be a good compromise?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, if someone doesn't know: not all Easyjet branded aircrafts are registred in UK, but many of them are registrated also in Switzerland or Austria depending if they fly for Easyjet Switzerland or Easyjet Europe. And now a question: is it correct listing Easyjet as primary user when the Wikilink send you to Easyjet UK page? Because this will be a wrong information. Maybe we could say "Easyjet Group". If you think Easyjet should be listed, I think footnote is a good idea. --Wind of freedom (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
footnote added --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
the country of registration is not always the AOC country: an European AOC can have N- registered aircraft, or some leased elsewhere, etc.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure you need additional permission to operate an N-reg or non-european aircraft in Europe, certainly the case in the UK. MilborneOne (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

There may be multiple divisions but EasyJet is a single company and i agree it should be listed on the primary users, because orders are not placed by neither "easyjet switzerland" or easyjet europe but rather, they are placed by the EasyJet Airline Company Limited T.Man21flex (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A321 stretch —something doesn't add up

According to the A321 section, "the A321 fuselage is stretched by 6.93 metres (22 ft 9 in) with a 4.27 m (14 ft 0 in) front plug immediately forward of wing and a 2.67 m (8 ft 9 in) rear plug.". 4.27 + 2.67 adds up to 6.94. Which of the three figures is wrong?--Leptictidium (mt) 20:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure but that looks like a rounding issue; maybe 4.27 m and 2.67 m were both rounded up to the 2nd decimal place, while the total stretch value was rounded after adding. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
That's what I thought as well. Any ideas how we can address this in the text?--Leptictidium (mt) 21:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Quick Punctuation Fix

Since we are on the English version of Wikipedia the following bit in the top of the page:

"As of 31 January 2018, a total of 6.005 A320neo family aircraft"

Should read:

"As of 31 January 2018, a total of 6,005 A320neo family aircraft"

I do not have an account so I cannot change this. I hope somebody can change this :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.55.233.92 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

IAE V2500 or P&W V2500

Hi, IAE V2500 engine owned by Pratt & Whitney today? BeirutMa2021 (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Review the engine article, IAE V2500 and engine manufacturer article, International Aero Engines for details. (I don't think I can explain the situation well enough.) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Different number of hull loss accidents here than on the page about airbus accidents

On this page it says there have been 47 hull loss incidents. But on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family It says there have been 36 hull loss incidents. Only one can be right, but I don't know which it is since they both cite the same source and I'm not sure how to make sense of it to fix it myself. Clockiel (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

One is dated (here), the other not: it was updated from the same source since a while. You can fix it by copy-pasting the paragraph here instead of the outdated one there.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge back A318, A319 and A321 here

Hello everybody, in the A320neo talk page, there was a proposal to split the 319neo and 321neo parts into separate articles. I proposed the opposite and to merge the A319(ceo) and A321(ceo) variants back in the main A320 family article, here (forgetting the A318). This was supported there by BilCat (and I was thanked for my proposition by Rosbif73), so I'm willing to investigate further.

I went through these variants articles history: there was a first discussion about a split in March and July 2010, followed by a second one in February 2011 (after a project talk proposition), followed by the A318 split in the same month by MilborneOne. After a five year hiatus, SempreVolando splat out A319 in 2016 and then A321 in November 2016

So, here we are now. Do you think a merge back here would be useful or do you think it would be detrimental? Thanks for your opinions.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Support a merge : The A318, A319 and A321 articles are way too repetitive compared to the main article here, and merging them back would not expand the main article so much as rendering it bloated, while that would be much better for future maintenance, avoiding repeating the same events here and there.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support merge - Merge all A320ceo articles into the main Airbus A320 family article, per nomination. BilCat (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support merge per nom, noting that the A321 article also has some snippets that relate to the A321neo. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

ELAC

The DAB at ELAC points here, presumably as it's a standard term for the Elevator and Aileron Computer. I'll have a go at fixing that.

There's no mention of it in this article, but the ELAC of the Airbus has been implicated in multiple accidents and I get more than a quarter million ghits on ELAC Airbus. So it should be mentioned somewhere IMO, and this article is probably as good a place as any. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

May i propose a new Main picture

F-WWAI A320-131 Airbus Industrie(prototype) FAB SEP88 (13753510323) crop

I don't see anything wrong with the current Jetstar A320 picture, but it might be better to use the picture above as it shows what the A320 looked like before TheOriginalSSE1 (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

A low quality image doesnt seem to be an improvement on the one already in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Improved readability

Hey,

the Specifications table is about twice as long as a desktop screen on the popular resolution 1920*1080. The table is loaded with technical facts and has 5 columns. In the lower half of the table, the reader doesn't have to scroll up to see which model is meant with a sticky header.

Also the engines table is longer than the desktop screen and has 3 columns. As there are multiple tables in the article, it helps the reader to see in which table the reader is currently by having a sticky header in this particular table.


In contrast to that, in these articles the sticky header does not make sense:

Bauxite#Production and reserves

Renewable energy in the United States#Current trends

WikiPate (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

new main picture

Hi, the present main picture is OK, but a little bit bland as it looks like hundreds of other airliner pics. I stumbled upon two pictures taken from above, which I think better depicts the airliner general configuration, better showing the low wing and underwing engine position. In the usual taken-from-below picture, the engine, wing and fuselage are a bit mixed-up.

  • Current Lufthansa, OK but bland
    Current Lufthansa, OK but bland
  • proposed Austrian, sideways from above, above clouds
    proposed Austrian, sideways from above, above clouds
  • proposed JetStar, from above, showing both engines, above land
    proposed JetStar, from above, showing both engines, above land

Between the two, I prefer the JetStar one as it better shows both engines and the contrast of the light aircraft against the darker land is more striking (while the clouds are a good metaphor of an aircraft natural element). Other thoughts? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm going with the Jetstar too. 194.223.23.148 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited text throughout the article including entire paragraphs and sections. The maintenance section is also quite short and I think it should be expanded. Is anyone interested in fixing up the article to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Airbus_A320_family/Archive_2&oldid=1258933846"