Talk:Sikorsky CH-37 Mojave

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sikorsky CH-37 Mojave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506193454/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/aviation/factsheets/ch37.html to http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/aviation/factsheets/ch37.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Editorializing?
A caption of one the photos accompanying this article states: "CH-37 Mojave attempting to lift a crashed Piasecki H-21" This would seem to imply that this lift was ultimately unsuccessful or, at least, that the outcome was in doubt. A more neutral caption might read: "CH-37 Mojave preparing to lift a crashed Piasecki H-21" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.44.11 (talk)


 * Agree, you can change the caption. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Better infobox photo?
The current infobox photo ("current" in gallery below) of an Army CH-43 leaves something to be desired: although it's a color photo showing the helicopter in flight at a good angle, it's unfortunately fuzzy and low in resolution. We have another color in-flight photo ("alternative 1" in gallery) of a Marines HR2S-1 which has higher resolution, but some may consider it too dark, and it's still fuzzy. If we abandon color for now, there's another alternative ("alternative 2" in gallery) of a Marines HR2S-1 which is much sharper and of high resolution; apart from the issue of color, it's arguably a superior photo to the first two. Thoughts on which should be chosen?

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think the current photo is fine as an infobox photo. The fuzziness isn't all that notable in a thumbnail, as its merits (simple background, good contrast, and color) make it the best of the alternatives. BilCat (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)