Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Junkers Ju 87

Junkers Ju 87

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.

Closed as Not Promoted.- Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 17:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recently promoted to GA status. The reviewing editor suggested I should push for FA status, so I thought I would go for A-Class first. Dapi89 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you requested a copyedit on the article? I have some problem areas, beginning in the second paragraph of the lead section; "easily recognizable" (by whom?), "fixed spatted undercarriage" (or is it its spatted, fixed undercarriage), etc.. I did not review the article for extensive use of technical jargon, but the caption for the photo of the wrecked Ju 87b refers to, "...positive and negative dihedral." While the photo and the caption are obviously intended to highlight something about the aircraft, I can't determine if it is the exposed spar and ribs, or the attachment bolt, or something else. Dihedral is not linked in any of its instances. I will hold my vote in reserve until further review of the article. --Born2flie (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. Not configured per WP:AIR/PC. Operational history should follow Development and precede Variants in a logical progression of history. Significant justification should be made for varying from the Aircraft project's guidelines. --Born2flie (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been reorged to follow WP:Air/PC layout. Some text may need to be moved from 1 section to another though. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bizarre opposition since Dihedral was linked to in design section before the GA review. I'll wait for further comment before addressing any major issues. If others think it stands a shot at A-Class I'll give it a go at changing major parts. Dapi89 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Upon further review, I agree that dihedral is linked in the first instance in the prose and that I must have overlooked it at the time. I think it should also be linked in the image caption as well, since the caption precedes the prose in occurence during reading the article (I read at 1024x768 resolution). I find the discussion in the Design section about the dihedral and anhedral angles of the gull wings to be unclear. I still have issues with the caption for the photo I mentioned prior to registering my dissent. It points out something that is not readily clear to the reader without them clicking on the image for a larger version and then searching for an attachment bolt. Does the wing demonstrate spars and ribs, or are they inherent structures to the design of the wing. I suppose the author of the caption meant that the Ju87, in its state of being wrecked and corroded, allowed viewers to see the exposed spars and ribs of the wing structure, even viewing the hard-to-find attachment bolt. Really, all I can see is its location and what I assume is the structure the bolt passes through to secure dihedral wing to the anhedral "wing root". --Born2flie (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see some problems, mostly vague and potentially confusing descriptions. For example "automatic pull-up dive brakes" in the second paragraph is a rather awkward description for the Askania autopilot and dive-bombing system, and "essentially noise making propellers" is confusing as a description for the infamous "trumpet of Jericho" sirens driven by a small windmill. The term "spatted" is used for the undercarriage of the Ju 87A while, unlike the other Ju 87 models, this actually had trousers instead of spats. The MG 81Z was a not a "dual barrel machine gun" but a twin pair (Zwilling) of MG 81 machine guns in a compact twin installation. The description of the models has the B, C and R in a confusing order, the H gets the briefest of mentions, and the K is only mentioned in a footnote -- I admit that it indeed is a bit obscure. Mutatis Mutandis (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed.

I see a lot of minor grammatical errors and the like. It needs a thorough vetting for problems like that and much more attention paid to writing clearly. Several examples: The designers avoided welding parts wherever possible with preference given to moulded, cast, and rotary parts. This was to allow large airframe segments to be interchangeable as a complete unit and increase the rapidity of repair status to operational readiness. Why would welded parts prevent major assemblies from being exchanged between aircraft? And the second clause of the second sentence simply doesn't make sense. And another: After Plauth's death, Pohlmann continued the development of the Junkers dive bomber. The Ju A 48 registration D-ITOR, was originally fitted with a BMW 132 engine, producing some 450 kW (600 hp). The machine was also fitted with dive brakes for dive testing. It's implied, but not clearly stated, that the Ju A 48 was the follow on divebomber to the K47. Is this correct? I don't have Griehl at hand to figure it out. But these sentences are not well-written and aren't in the state required for an A-class article. There's a lot of good information here, but the language used is a hindrance to putting it across. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the images are lacking the alt= parameter. I beleive this to be required now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2009 (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.