Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Petlyakov Pe-8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Petlyakov Pe-8[edit]
- Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I think that this article meets all the requirements for an A-class article, although the lead may need to be lengthened. Suggestions are welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No problems reported with alt text or dab links. One external link is reported as suspicious, please check and advise.
- It was a redirect, which has been fixed.
- The entire external link cluster appears to be in Russian, not that I am complaining or anything, but out of curiosity were you unable to locate anything in English?
- The servers are in Russia, but the sites are in English.
- See about splitting the intro paragraph up into at least two paragraphs, having the one doesn't exactly bode well this far up the assessment pole.
- The bomb bay was modified to allow for a single 5,000-kilogram (11,000 lb) FAB-5000 bomb to be carried and provisions were added to carry VAP-500 or VAP-1000 poison gas dispensers under the wings. What kind of poison gas dispenser? Also, I am curious to know how such a device would work. Surely you'd have bee a lot close to the ground than 30,000+ feet? Do we have an article here that you could link to for the operation of such a device?
- I don't have much at all on the dispensers, but I presume that they were canisters that mounted to the external bomb shackles and would spray the gas from nozzles in the rear of the canisters. Nothing on the Chemical Warfare article that is relevant. And, yes, I believe that spraying operations would be at a few thousand feet at most.
- Perhaps a little trimming of the history section would do some good, there seem to be a lot of details in there concerning operations that I think could be better dealt with at the regiment and squad level.
- Trying to give a sense of how the aircraft was used. Since so few were made there's a lot of overlap between the general history of the aircraft and the individual regimental histories, especially since the latter are incomplete in the sources.
- See about formatting the external links so the site names are all that are visible.
- That's the opposite of what the MOS says. But I've reworked them anyways.
- Support. The prose could do with a bit of a tidying before FAC, but besides that it was very interesting and informative. – Joe N 02:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be a little more specific? I've stared at this so many times that I tend to be a bit "blind" to my own writing by now.
- Support -- Reviewed and passed this for GA, and since then further info has been added so I see no reason to withhold A-Class status. I note someone has added a fact tag to the specs but this appears unnecessary as a source is mentioned there already. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images blown up to 250px.
- Support — one comment: shouldn't the Hauptmann in Hauptmann Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein be in italics and followed by an English equivalent rank in brackets (or vice versa). Also IV./NJG 5 denotes the 4th group of NJG 5, maybe this could be made more explicit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I rather thought that the link would suffice for a translation for Hauptmann, but OK. But why should it be italicized? Rewrote the bit about IV./NJG 5.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.