Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ikarus IK-2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ikarus IK-2[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

My first attempt at getting an aircraft article to A-Class, so be kind... The IK-2 was a homegrown Yugoslav monoplane fighter aircraft that saw service during the German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. After the creation of the Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia, several of these aircraft were employed in the ground attack role against the Yugoslav Partisans. No examples survived World War II. All review comments will be promptly responded to. Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: looks pretty good to me. I have a couple of nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there appears to be a mixture of British and US English variation, for instance "emphasised" (British) and "maneuverability" (US)
"Badjak was appointed as test pilot..." the spelling of the name here is inconsistent with "Leonid Bajdak" where it first appears
"the IK-01 was that the IK-02": inconsistent with the headers "IK-1" and "IK-2"
"Poručnik Janko Dobnikar": can the rank be translated here as you do with "Potpukovnik (Lieutenant Colonel)"?
same as above for "Kapetan" and "Podnarednik"
"The pilots subjected them to considerable additional testing, they entered normal service around mid-year, and the remaining six entered service during the rest of 1939." ---> Might be better/smoother as: "The pilots subjected them to considerable additional testing, and they entered normal service around mid-year. The remaining six entered service during the remainder of 1939."
"patrol in the poor flying weather" --> "patrol in poor flying weather"
"one of the IK-2s force landed": do we know why? Engine trouble?
- no further information, possibly damaged, but the source doesn't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, are you in a position to make some of these changes? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - All done, Rupert. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a bit problematic. First, do we have any leads on the original, or at least an earlier source? Second, "purpose of use" should be more extensive. Third, the "unique historic images" tag is generally reserved for instances where the image itself is the subject of commentary - eg. File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg. The other tag is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki the first publication I am currently aware of was the 1973 British published profile (used as a source), and it says that the images are per the authors (both Yugoslavs), so I have removed it for now as it is not pre-1973 (and therefore not per PD-Serbia). If I find an earlier publication that means it is PD-Serbia, I will re-add it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If we don't find a PD image, is there any reason we shouldn't be able to use the original picture under a FUR? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I spose the argument would be that someone could make a diagram/drawing of the aircraft to show what it looked like. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: ~~Comments:~~ As a first attempt this is an amazing start! My only real suggestion is to break up some big paragraphs into smaller ones - paras should generally focus on a single topic.

"The gull-wing design emphasised power, speed, maneuverability, climb and firepower." - and cook breakfast too? The concern I have here is that these parameters are physically incompatible, especially speed vs. maneuverability/climb. These are perhaps in order, IE, the designers considered speed more important than maneuverability, and that more important than climb. Is there any language to that effect? If not, this list just seems to mean "we want a good plane", at which point I don't think it's worth mentioning.
"The parameters of the evolved concept" - I found this a bit wordy. I think this is really saying "The aircraft was designed to use the..."
- Agree, was going to suggest something similar myself... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The pilot was installed aft" - The enclosed cockpit was located to the rear...
Do we have any details on the design of the cockpit canopy?
"adjustable in pitch. A considerable amount" I think a para break between these statements would improve flow.
"his own test program. Permission was granted" - and the same here.
"designers closely involved. The main difference" - and here.
"machine guns.[8] After the second prototype" - and here.
"The pilots subjected them to considerable additional testing, they entered" - two separate statements here. I'm not sure which of two possibilities to use though, "After the pilots..." or "additional testing before they entered..."

That's it, the whole thing seems to be in excellent shape already. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- G'day Maury, thanks for the review. I have implemented all your suggested paragraph breaks and other suggestions. I had another look at the design concepts and it seems pretty clear that power and manoeuvrability were prioritised over other aspects. There is nothing in the source about the cockpit canopy, I'm afraid. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on the "qualities" bit I'm not sure we have to remove it completely, just make it clear that it was an ordered list. But in retrospect, I'm not sure we've lost anything important by removing it. Ok, one last one:

"them to evolve their initial ideas into" - evolve -> modify. We use this interchangeably in many dialects, but in others evolve means something very specific.

That's it! Looking really good now. I've always liked these lesser-known designs, so it's nice to see quality articles on them. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks again, I actually quite enjoyed my first aircraft article. I also rather like obscure topics... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Maury, if you are happy to support now, this looks ready for promotion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - yes, everything has been addressed, let's get this one rolling! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- I'll take a proper look at this but will wait until the above comments are actioned as I've already found one that I'd have put forward myself and don't want to double up; watchlisting this so I know when that's done... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- copyedited a bit so pls let me know if I've inadvertently altered meaning; structure, level of detail and referencing look okay to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that's all fine, thanks Ian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.