Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sukhoi Su-37/archive1

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.

Closed / withdrawn by nominator -- Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhoi Su-37[edit]

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"}'

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... the article had just passed GA, and I think it is good enough to reach FA status. Before that, however, I'd like to have a dress-rehearsal to see if the WikiProject agrees with what I think. Cheers Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Comment[reply]

Passes a quick copyedit with a few edits - please check
Please fix caption: "The Su-37 is only a few aircraft which could perform the "Frolov Chakra", which is a 180° loop. It is an example of post-stall maneuvering, a type of supermaneuverability.[8]"
Could use more detail in weapons section than "The vast range of weapons".

The aircraft was only a demo, and there's hardly any info regarding weapons. I'd assume the Su-37 would use the same weapons as the Su-35. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph of design is a bit too dense - would benefit from breaking into sub-sections. For example: history, requirements, maneuverability, firepower, electronics & control system so the reader doesn't get so lost in the detail.
Recommend comparison with HOTAS.
Not sure what you mean. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps comparison of capabilities with other air superiority fighters in terms of specifications? A table? That would make for an intersting read and a more engaging article.
I am not an MoS expert, but use of citations and linking looks good in general.
No offense intended, but borderline positive POV. Maybe tone done the enthusiasm half a notch (remove very in general) for a more professional article.

Really? I really pride myself on being neutral despite my love for aviation. Hmm, this sounds problematic; I guess the Su-37 received much positive coverage, which outweighs the negative side. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The average quality of MilHist articles has improved so much over the last few years, overall this looks really good to me. Doug (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this stage:

I enjoyed reading the article because of the enthusiasm for the topic that came through - it is written in a lively way, by someone who's clearly very keen on the aircraft. I'd oppose A-class review at this stage because I think the text needs some further work though. I've listed some of the issues that I consider relevant below:
Design and development section - this starts quite abruptly, without really explaining to the non-specialist what the aircraft is about, and is, to be honest, fairly dense in terms of technical language. The sorts of thing I might recommend starting with here include who Sukhoi are (they're linked in the lede, but a couple of words would help here), a sense of what's happening in 1983 (the design work is occurring during the Cold War etc.), why someone is developing this aircraft and explaining what sort of an aircraft we're talking about (we know that its a multi-role fighter, designed to take on NATO in a European conflict, but many readers won't). Similarly it would be worth briefly explaining or at least alluding what terms like thrust-vectoring, canards, active controls etc. mean - imagine you're talking to someone who knows nothing about fighters - why is thrust-vectoring important? Surely all aircraft have glass cockpits so you can see out? (I know they don't all use glass, but many people would be wondering about this...!) Isn't a canard a type of French duck? (we know it means an aircraft in which the tailplane is mounted in front of the wing, but many won't...) Some of this is linked, but at the moment you'd have to click every other word, when a bit more expansion would make it easy to read without referring away from the article each time.
Operational history - again, worth checking through to make sure the technical details are comprehensible to a non-specialist. I'd double check bits like "a minor incident when the emergency undercarriage extension handle was moved, preventing gear retraction", which isn't easily understandable if you don't know planes, or "a ferry flight" - for most people, a ferry is a boat or a ship.
" the enigmatic designation, "Su-37MR"" - ? Why enigmatic?
"Frolov was joined by Igor Votintsev, a Hero of Russia medal recipient" - did Votintsev get the medal for this? If he did, I'd argue its relevant, but if he didn't, I'm not sure why its being mentioned in this article.

Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Meanwhile, Sukhoi was busy with the T10M" - a bit colloquial, and reads as if Sukhoi was a person
At FAC, some of your sources (particularly Global Security) will be questioned in relation to the requirement for high-quality reliable sources
Citations to multi-page sources require page numbers
Citation formatting should be consistent
"The first Su-27M prototype (T-10S-70) made its maiden flight on 28 June 1988.[5] Changes from the Su-27 include canards, upgraded engines, new radar, and a digital fly-by-wire flight-control system.[6] Later Su-35 prototypes..." - a few issues here. What's a canard? Does the middle sentence refer to the first prototype or the most recent version? By "new radar" do you mean new technology, new design, new hardware...?
Lots of passive voice, conditional phrases, and tense inconsistencies
Why are the metrical numbers under General characteristics so much more precise than the imperial ones? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this point; only one problem fixed so far in response to the reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. 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.