Talk:Sikorsky CH-37 Mojave

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Rotorcraft

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

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

This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sikorsky CH-37 Mojave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506193454/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/aviation/factsheets/ch37.html to http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/aviation/factsheets/ch37.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editorializing?[edit]

A caption of one the photos accompanying this article states: "CH-37 Mojave attempting to lift a crashed Piasecki H-21" This would seem to imply that this lift was ultimately unsuccessful or, at least, that the outcome was in doubt. A more neutral caption might read: "CH-37 Mojave preparing to lift a crashed Piasecki H-21" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.44.11 (talk)

Agree, you can change the caption. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better infobox photo?[edit]

The current infobox photo ("current" in gallery below) of an Army CH-43 leaves something to be desired: although it's a color photo showing the helicopter in flight at a good angle, it's unfortunately fuzzy and low in resolution. We have another color in-flight photo ("alternative 1" in gallery) of a Marines HR2S-1 which has higher resolution, but some may consider it too dark, and it's still fuzzy. If we abandon color for now, there's another alternative ("alternative 2" in gallery) of a Marines HR2S-1 which is much sharper and of high resolution; apart from the issue of color, it's arguably a superior photo to the first two. Thoughts on which should be chosen?

current
alternative 1
alternative 2

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think the current photo is fine as an infobox photo. The fuzziness isn't all that notable in a thumbnail, as its merits (simple background, good contrast, and color) make it the best of the alternatives. BilCat (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]