Talk:Cessna Citation X

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

[edit] Cost?

I know price isn't listed at cessna.com, but does anyone know how much the X runs? - MSTCrow 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock terms, advertising, sales tone...

Much of this article is written like a sales brochure. Is the author trying to tell me about this aircraft, or actually SELL me this aircraft!--Bodybagger (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The you haven't read many brochures lately! (And most brochures include phone numbers. I didn't see one here!) As stated in my edit summary, most of the actual text problems can be solved by adding proper citations to the article. Also, please remeber that Wikipedia articles are generally wrtten and edited by a number of people, not just one "author". I'm pretty certain that you will disagree with my revions, however. If you do revert the tag removal, please be so kind as to go through the article's text, and try to list the specific problem phrases that you feel are trying to SELL you this aircraft. In my brief read-through of the page, I didn't see anything remotely like that. There are some claims, such as to being the fastest aircraft in production, but that's to be expected here, though it should have a specific source. General tags like you've added are really not that helpful to me if the problems aren't obvious,a nd these aren't. I've seen a number of articles that were definitely adverts, and many thatn contained "brochure"-type info, and I've cleaned out a lot of them. Any problems here are minor compared to those. - BillCJ (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)