Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Yermolayev Yer-2

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.

Yermolayev Yer-2 edit

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): --Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

This article has passed GAR and I believe that it meets all the requirements for A-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ This is a great article, but I think that it needs a little bit more work:
- This text "The survivors were flown, in ever dwindling numbers, until the beginning of 1944 when none were left in front-line service. However, the restart of the production line in 1943 re-introduced the aircraft to combat operations in the latter half of 1944." is a bit unclear, and could be simplified
  - How is it now? Honestly I'm not sure what the problem was, but I've rewritten most of the second sentence, which is where I think the problem lay.
- Did the heavy diesel engines change the range of this aircraft?
  - Yes, explained in the variants section.
- The variants section needs a cite for each variant
  - Done
- Is it possible to expand the operational history section? (and I acknowledge in advance that it may not)
  - Only slightly. I added a sortie count and losses for one regiment through the opening stages and have similar information on the other that I can add if y'all think it would help.
- Is it possible to provide a comprehensive list of the units which operated this aircraft in the operators section? Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. The only further suggestion I have for taking this to FA status is that the list of units could use a cite, but that's an easy fix. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- No problems reported with external links. One dab link needs to be located and fixed, if at all possible. One image is in need of alt text.
  - Fixed the dab. Deleted the three view as its license is suspect.
- Please aim to have at least two paragraphs in the lead.
  - Done
- In the fifth paragraph of the development section the last line reads in part "...it was canceled when the factory was evacuated in October." Are we talking about the larger evacuation of factories and other supply depots from the western USSR region to prevent them from falling into German hands? If so I think that warrants a note since this was a major gamble for Stalin and was at this point in the war a move that by all means seemed to be proof that the USSR would fall to the NDSAP forces. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I've expanded the reference a little, to explain that it was due to the German advance; is that you wanted to see?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I am driving at is summed up at Operation Barbarossa, specifically the part in bold here:

"The German High Command grossly underestimated the control the central Soviet government exercised. The German High Command wrongly thought the Soviet government was ineffective. The Germans based their hopes of quick victory on the belief the Soviet communist system was like a rotten structure which would collapse from a hard kick.[96] In fact, the Soviet system proved resilient and surprisingly adaptable. In the face of early crushing defeats, the Soviets managed to dismantle entire industries threatened by the German advance. These critical factories, along with their skilled workers, were transported by rail to secure locations beyond the Germans' reach. Despite the loss of raw materials and the chaos of an invasion, the Soviets managed to build new armaments factories in sufficient numbers to allow mass production of needed war machinery. The Soviet government was never in danger of collapse and remained at all times in tight control of the Soviet war effort."

As this relates to my last comment, the question is whether the cancellation of the plane in October had to do with this overall decision to evacuate the soviet factories and their workers from the war zone to safer positions. That fact is not clearly explained in the article, and its a point I would like to have clarified. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly said why the aircraft was cancelled, as stated in my sources. You're asking if it was related to the evacuation and _I_ think that it was, but none of my sources explicitly say that it was, so I can't say so lest I stray into OR. Now the AM-37 engine was cancelled explicitly because of the evacuation as stated in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support.

Why did you link 1940s in the lead?
- Fixed
"With a gross overload weight of 11,000 kg (24,251 lb), fully 6,200 kg (13,669 lb) of that was payload." Fragment.
- How does it read now?
"Other problems were an excessive take-off run, defects with its engines and its defensive armament was inadequate." Awkward.
- How does it read now?
"This engine, like all diesels, offered a greatly reduced fuel consumption compared to a standard gasoline-powered engine, but a great penalty in weight." At a great penalty, perhaps?
- Indeed.
"The Yer-2 was not in squadron service when the Germans invaded on 22 June 1941," Perhaps just "when Germany"?
- Done
In discussing the raid on Berlin, you say three took off and two bombed Berlin, of which one was later shot down. What happened to the third one?
- Added
Please submit it for a copy-edit. I've pointed out the most glaring errors in the prose, but there are other places that could do with some tightening and touching up.
- I'd much prefer to address these things myself so pointing them out as you did above is much more helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be at all possible to add another picture? The Development and, to a lesser extent, the Operational history sections make large blocks of boring text.
- Done.

Please take care of these before it's ready for A-class. – Joe N 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading it, I only see one problem: in "A Yer-2 was modified with experimental Mikulin AM-37 engines, a reinforced undercarriage, armored seats for the navigator and gunner, and the original ShKAS machine guns were exchanged for 12.7-mm UBT machine guns," you forget parallel structure in the last phrase. All of your fixes look good. – Joe N 22:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten this clause and think that I've corrected the problem. See what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support TomStar81 (Talk) 12:05, 25 February 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.