Talk:Petlyakov Pe-3
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic promised CE of the article, plus some comments
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Petlyakov Pe-3 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Petlyakov Pe-3 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 2, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 9th Bomber Regiment was tasked to lead groups of Soviet fighters and attack aircraft (over 2000 aircraft in total) to their targets during 1941 because their pilots could not navigate on their own? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.png)
.svg)
GA review edit
I have begun (and ended) a GA review, which can be found here. It was an easy pass, with only a minor comment. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
promised CE of the article, plus some comments edit
Sturm, I promised I would look this over, and I apologize for the delay. I've made some minor tweaks (swapped subject/object, strengthened verbs, etc.) in the text. There are two parts that need clarification. What is a tactical bomber and why did the German bombing of Moscow convince the Soviets they needed one. I tweaked the lead a bit, to put some important info up front (i.e., this was WWII). We need to understand the bis after the number. What's that about? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just happy that you found the time to get to it; don't worry about the delay. I've changed tactical bomber to high-speed bomber which should be a bit clearer to the ordinary reader and clarified that it was originally designed to be a night fighter. I also added a note about explaining the bis designation. I'm not sure that I like the one sentence lead paragraph, but we'll see how it flies. How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still not clear on the first sentence in the development. why did they need these aircraft. How does a high speed bomber protect a city being bombed? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, it doesn't protect anything. But a night fighter derived from a high-speed bomber can at least try to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still not clear on the first sentence in the development. why did they need these aircraft. How does a high speed bomber protect a city being bombed? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)