Talk:Next Generation Air Transportation System

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Cooperation (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperation, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.CooperationWikipedia:WikiProject CooperationTemplate:WikiProject CooperationCooperation

Untitled

NextGen simply stands for "Next Generation", and more commonly refers to new cutting-edge upgrades, usually software related. Can someone please fix NextGen into a disamb with a move/create article instead of a redirect? 121.208.180.8 (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs a lot of help. Perhaps some information from the GAO concerning this project could be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andercee (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a lot of help, but a lot of fact-checking for neutrality. It most definitely has a pro-NGATS slant to it at this point. I don't now enough about these things to do much about it, though. Sorry... I realize I'm not offering much in the way of constructive criticism, but this is not good or impartial encyclopedic writing. --Hraefen ^Talk 18:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to rewrite this article, but I suspect that I will need a lot of guidance in the style to use, as I am a newbie. To start with, what template would be suitable to use? Richard McDonald Woods 14:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdonar (talk • contribs)
Re-written. Richard McDonald Woods 10:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdonar (talk • contribs)
Added Updates section. Richard McDonald Woods 15:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdonar (talk • contribs)

Richard, I've come across this series of articles whilst patrolling new pages. As per the comments above I feel this still needs a bit more work. An encyclopedic article should be a summary of the key facts of the system. Whilst phrases like The air transportation system of the United States is under increasing stress in the first years of the twenty-first century. may be appropriate later in the article, they shouldn't really be the first sentence a reader encounters. I have revised the lede of this one but would encourage you to do similar for the other related articles. Essentially it shouldn't read like promotional literature. I hope the changes made are of some help but if you have any further queries please don't hesitate to drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. Nick Ottery (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations

Currently a lot of unexplained/unlinked abbreviations.142.221.110.4 (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms and challenges

To balance this article out, what are the criticisms of this system plan? One vague reference to cultural/organizational issues does not lay out what might really be going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.57.100 (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs a lot of help. Several criticisms with citations were added a few months ago and they’ve been taken out and essentially replaced with a bunch of fluff. I suspect someone with a lot of money riding on this keeps changing the Wikipedia page to hide nextgen negative consequences and public opinion. The page reads like FAA propaganda. Rosmarinus2 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI Contributions

{{request edit}} I have a paid COI with Honeywell. I'd like to suggest some revisions to create an encyclopedic "Justifications" section among other changes to replace the somewhat puffy material currently in the article. You can see the suggested edits in a diff here and what the new article would look like here). King4057 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I unwikilinked some common words and updated the article. Woz2 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now realized I pasted over the contribution "[Challenges]" from Jamilla CD. Sorry! The contribution had merit, but was a little light on reliable sources. Thoughts on how to recover? Woz2 (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Style / Fairness

Someone needs to really look at this. The shilling is a bit much. Does the history section really need to recount the history of the FAA? It reads like an airline lobby website. Moshe Schorr (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I trimmed the History section and added to the article in general {{advertisement}}. -- Beland (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]