Boeing 747 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 12, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 28, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed December 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 9, 2016, February 9, 2017, January 22, 2018, and January 22, 2020. Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Aviation: Aircraft FA‑class 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 articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the aircraft project. Template:Vital article Template:WP1.0

The article is full of "not a typo" templates, for what I think refers to the use of the n-dash, in e.g. 747–300, as opposed to 747-300. The usage is not consistent across the article, and it's the first time I've seen the n-dash being used. For example Flight International uses the normal dash, as does Boeing.com, example here. When was the consensus reached and why? zmm (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "not a typo" is used to prevent bots from changing normal dashes to ndashes. The common dash is the right format for the designation; these are not number ranges where is a ndash should be used. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks. I've changed the n-dashes to just dashes. zmm (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having a template obfuscating the wikitext for human readers is proof the bots are reaching too far.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's possible, I think two names for the same template would do the trick. For example {{dash bot stay away}} :-) But this is probably not the place for such suggestion. zmm (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists June 11, 1980 as the order date under the 747-300 section, based on a primary source. But based on a secondary source (Bowman, 2000), quote:

"Swissair's interest at the drawing-board stage in July that year was the driving force behind Boeing's deision to go ahead with production of the new -300 series." [Bold mine]

Making that date the launch, but not the first order. There's no reason I think for Bowman to make up the July date. It would be great if this can be verified using another secondary source, and the 747-300 section updated, to match the "Improved 747 versions" section where I added the launch date. zmm (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That first June 1980 order may have been converted to the -300 later like maybe that July. Boeing first offered the 747-200B with the SUD option in June 20, 1980. Swiss ordered the 4x 747-200B(SUD) which were later re-designated 747-300 per p. 59 of the Jenkins book (ISBN 1-58007-026-4) that I have. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was an interesting exercise. The claim I recently corrected (the SUD being offered before the -300) wad added back in 2008. The claim is made based on this webpage, where the claim doesn't exist (but I can see how it can be an honest mistake). Then the reading improvements took place in 2012.

So 12 years that error persisted. What I think is interesting is the reason. I've made another edit to that section just now, explaining how the JAL -100s with SUD were brand-new (the production was still running alongside the -300), and added an example of an actual retrofit to an existing fleet, with the year for context (also added another page reference). zmm (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should close the chapter on this aviation jumbo giant: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-747/end-of-the-runway-for-747-jumbo-as-boeing-placed-final-part-orders-idUSKBN2442O8

86.180.169.19 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)anon[reply]

According to that source, Boeing has not confirmed that production is ending, and production will continue through at least 2022. No changes need to be made to article at this time. We're certainly not going to state that production will end in 2020, as several users have tried to claim in the article. - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an image of a 747 classic freighter on the whole page, and considering that most of them ended up as freighters, we should put one in the section for the-200.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabst blue ribbon led zeppelin (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler picture with a clean sky background should be preferable, as shown in commons:Boeing_747#Boeing_747-200--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Boeing 747 rollout (3).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gazmills14 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under Operators section.

The final 2 BA 747s took off G-CIVY & G-CIVB departed from 27R one destined for Kemble, near Cirencester, while the other headed for The airfield at RAF St Athan near Cardiff. Both 747 models took off in foul weather shortly after 8.30am on Thursday.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to add. This is already covered at the bottom of the Development section (see "Further developments and end of production" subsection). -Fnlayson (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are considerable layout issues and MOS:SANDWICHing caused by too many images; some could be moved, some could be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]