Talk:Boeing 717

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Boeing 717 is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal

http://www.gizmohighway.com/transport/boeing_717.htm

[edit] Changing Airticle Name From "Boeing 717" To "Boeing 717-200"

The Boeing 717 was a Military Transport, based on the 707. It shared similarity with the KC-135 As Well. This airplane is the Boeing 717-200, and it was called the 717-200 because there was already a "717" (-100). For The Sake Of Accuracy, I reccomend we rename this Article, and the references to it to illustrate this fact.--VonVeezelsnider 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• The KC-135 was initially designated within Boeing as the model 717. Not worth renaming this article because of that. That's just trivia - Fnlayson 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The -200 designation has nothing to do with the prior model.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 09:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the -200 model reflected the fact that it was effectively a 'mid-size' DC-9 variant - there was some work towards a -100 that would have been equivalent to a DC-9-30. ericg ✈ 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

This article was tagged as not being neutral but there is, obviously, nothing here on the talk page to indicate why. The text is somewhat prosey, but not in my view lacking in NPOV. I've therefore removed the tag. ProhibitOnions 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I left my reason in the edit summary rather than on the talk page. I'm looking at sentences like: "The wisdom of the Boeing decision gradually became apparent." The article contains a lot of analysis of states of mind and qualitative factors, but doesn't cite any sources. It feels POV or OR, and could really stand to have the prose turned down a notch. Night Gyr 22:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, makes sense. I'll put it back in. Thanks, ProhibitOnions 08:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vague MD-90 sales statement

The second sentence below seems a bit vague. This is from the Early background section.

Almost 1,200 MD-80s were delivered through the 1980s and early 1990s, but the following MD-90 sold poorly, with just 117 built. It outsold the 737-600 and Airbus A318, suggesting that low sales could have been due to the lack of a supporting family of aircraft.

Seems like that should be "It was outsold by the 737-600..". Thanks. -Fnlayson 20:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This bit confused me too. The MD-90 is a larger aircraft and didn't really compete with the 737-600 and A318. I suspect this is trying to refer to the 717's competitors, but saying that outselling the family aircraft suggested that low sales were the results of being part of a family is pretty contradictory. It's confusing and speculative, I'll just delete it from the article. -- Hawaiian717 06:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

---