Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Petlyakov Pe-8/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 9 February 2010.

Petlyakov Pe-8

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently passed a Milhist ACR and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Auntieruth55 has been kind enough to clean up the text; I ask reviewers to reread the article to see if their objections have been met.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text looks good (thanks), except that the alt text for File:USSR stamp 989 Pe-8.jpg contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (and who has looked at earlier images and can be presumed to know what a Petlyakov Pe-8 looks like). Problematic phrases include "Soviet", "ruble", "from 1945", and "CPA #989". Please remove these phrases or move them to the caption, as per WP:ALT. Perhaps you could transcribe the text in that stamp instead, as per WP:ALT? Phrases that could be transcribed include "ПОЧТА СССР" "1 РУБ", "Петляков-8", and "тяжелый бомбардировщик". Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the phrases are Mail USSR, 1 Ruble, Petlyakov-8 and something bomber (Google won't translate the first word). So the verifiability issues are 1945 and CPA #989? I suppose I can always delete them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that we can't assume that the reader of the Wikipedia article knows Russian, so the alt text should give the Russian, and the caption can give the English translation as needed. The caption is available to both visually impaired and sighted readers, and it should contain any English translation so that both sets of readers can see the translation. (Please see WP:ALT for alt text vs captions.) Yes, it's probably best to delete the 1945 and the CPA #989. Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would help you translate Russian words or sentences into English if you explain to me what you want (I didn't meet with ALT before this). For example, "ПОЧТА СССР" means "Post of USSR" or "USSR Post" just like "Почта России" means "Russian Post"; "1 РУБ" means "1 Ruble", the Russian currency; "тяжелый бомбадировщик" means "heavy bomber". CPA is the Soviet Union stamp catalogue. Tell me what you want and I'll help you. --RoadTrain (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind offer. I guess that what I need now is a citation for the catalog # and the date of release. If you happen to have access to one and can furnish the necessary information that would be most excellent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the translations, but the point is that the alt text should report only the original text, and any translations should be put into the caption so that both sighted and visually impaired readers get the translations. See, for example, the image in July 2009 Ürümqi riots : its alt text says the banner reads "维护法律尊严，严惩犯罪分子" and its caption translates this to "Uphold the sanctity of the law, and severely punish the criminals". Eubulides (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think that I did understand what you need. You can't use the detailed description text giving at commons: "Почтовая марка СССР 1945 года: тяжёлый бомбардировщик Пе-8. ЦФА #989, 1 рубль, гашёная." as you must cite the only text on the image, right? Then it will be: "Тяжелый бомбардировщик Пе-8, ПОЧТА СССР, 1 РУБ". It's equal to "The heavy bomber Pe-8, USSR Post, 1 Rub".--RoadTrain (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) How's this now?
 * There was a typo that messed up the formatting. I, and while I was at it, transcribed the text more accurately, removed a bit of confusion in the caption, and used " " to avoid having the picture be smaller than the 300px that some users prefer. That should do it for alt text; thanks again for your help. Eubulides (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose 'Comments . A very informative article, but the prose still needs some work. A few examples:
 * "... a bomber that could carry 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) of bombs 4,500 km (2,800 mi) at a speed greater than 440 km/h (270 mph) from an altitude of 10,000 metres ...". From an altitude?
 * Fixed


 * "The engine cooling system was revised to alleviate the problem with the aerodynamics of the outer engine nacelles ...". What problems with the aerodynamics? This is the first we're told of any problems.
 * Do you think I should spell out all of the issues encountered by the prototype and then list the changes made to fix them?


 * No, I think that you ought to have explained earlier that there were problems with the aerodynamics instead of introducing this non sequitor. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The control system revised, an autopilot fitted and the electrical system was redesigned." Should that be "was revised"?
 * It should indeed.


 * "Other changes included the deletion of the 'beard' ...". Deletion seems a strange choice of word in this context.
 * What do you suggest? Dropped, discarded. Deleted seemed OK to me.


 * "The exhaust arrangements of the ASh-82 were not compatible with the guns in the rear of the engine nacelles and they were deleted." Which were deleted? The exhaust arrangements or the guns?
 * Yeah, unclear antecedent there.


 * "When Operation Barbarossa began on 22 June 1941 only the 2nd Squadron of the 14th Heavy Bomber Regiment (TBAP—Tyazholy Bombardirovochnyy Avia Polk), based at Borispol[15] was equipped with nine TB-7s ...". So other squadrons were equipped with either more or less than nine?
 * OK, rewritten


 * "... the others landing elsewhere or crash-landing in Finland and Estonia." So they managed to crash twice, once in Finland and then again in Estonia?
 * Multiple planes, multiple landing sites.


 * "He was forced to turn around after a fuel tank was punctured and crash-landed in southern Estonia." So his fuel tank crash-landed, but what about the rest of the plane?
 * OK


 * "By the eve of the Soviet counterattack at Stalingrad, Operation Uranus on 8 November the regiments had fourteen Pe-8s on hand ...". Is there a comma missing here?
 * Yep


 * "During the early part of the battle, the long-range aviation units continued to strike targets in the German rear areas during the night ...". Awkward repetition.
 * Fixed, thanks for your comments, they've been very helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see the whole thing looked at again, as I just gave a few examples. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Further comments. I'm no image expert, in fact some days I can hardly even bother to open my eyes, so feel free to ignore my comments, but I do have a few concerns about the copyright status of some of the images used in this article. For instance, the image in the infobox is claimed to be in the public domain, but I see no justification for that claim. Which of the Russian PD rules apply in this case? Similarly with this one. If the author is unknown, then how can the PD claim under Armenian law be supported? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Beats me. The Russian revision to their copyright law appears to reassert copyright over almost all WW2-era images which had previously been out of copyright. And I don't know what to do about the Armenian image. I guess I'll have to ask on the Village pump for guidance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have to address this question, you do. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? I hadn't known. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point in this. I don't think the article meets the FA criteria, and I'm not about to argue with you about that. If the issues I've raised aren't addressed then I will be opposing this article's promotion. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As you wish. I'm still waiting for a response at the Village Pump on the image issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the comments at the Village pump I've dropped one image and loaded the other here to change the license to FU.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Elcobbola can be consulted on Russian image concerns; he knows that area. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you replace the nonfree infobox image with the free stamp image? What does the infobox image show (that the stamp image doesn't) that justifies using a non-free image? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I believe that a photo is always preferable to a drawing. The stamp is kinda neat, but doesn't come close to replacing a photo, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not enough according to WP:NFCC, esp #8. I think the photo should be replaced. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I take that back, because even the copyright status of the stamp is dubious. There are hundreds of Soviet stamps like this at commons, but I think they'll all be deleted eventually. The template used has nothing to do with stamps. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Read my comments to mav below; how is a stamp not equivalent to a banknote which is explicitly permitted under Russian copyright?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * I assume that the Air International ref is the "Pe-8" article in the bibliography? Best to list the footnote closer to the style in the bibliography
 * Hard to do since no authors are given for the article. Should I stay with journal title or switch to article title?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd do "article title" Journal title myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not review the russian language refs for reliablity.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Post-war use" section seems rather thin. In particular, are any of these aircraft known to still be around? --Carnildo (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, no survivors. Info on Cold-War era use for any Soviet aircraft is a bit thin on the ground.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Question can you explain what the ilpilots and allaces cites are? I couldn't read the main page, but the website does look amateurish  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ilpilots is the Statistical Digest of the VVS during WW2 while allaces are regimental histories with citations. Be advised Google translate may show ilpilots as an attack site, but it isn't. Just use one of the other translation sites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Pending Support . Support This is an informative and well done article. Storm's reputation in the Military History Project is a solid one, and although I know little about this area of military history, I've reviewed some of the sources, and they look good to me. These are consistently sources that show up in other Soviet aircraft articles (although he/she does those as well). This article is well-written, with a few minor stumbles, and interesting to read. I'd recommend a couple of tweaks to it, which I have listed on the talk page of the article, rather than to clutter this space and check back here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Storm has addressed the points I brought up on the article page, or is addressing them to my satisfaction. I've read the comments below about passive voice, and although I agree that usually the passive voice is bad, in the Soviet structure, it would be extremely difficult to put a specific name on a set of orders, unless it was Stalin's. The collective ideology transformed all decisions into the decisions of the people. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support pending addressing/resolving these points: --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The decision was made to proceed without it" has passive voice. Please tell us who made the decision or revise.
 * My source doesn't identify who made that decision: "It was decided to build the TB-7 without this vital component, although without it the machine lost its major advantage of high speed at high altitude."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody more familiar with image copyright needs to do a review of File:Pe-8.jpg and File:USSR stamp 989 Pe-8.jpg. Pe-8.jpg was at first claimed to be PD but now has a fair use rationale, yet has no mention of original source or author. It is also not clear to me that USSR stamp 989 Pe-8.jpg is covered by the Russian PD law.
 * Source and author of Pe-8.jpg are unknown and probably unknowable at this stage since the original uploader didn't put either on the original image. Here's the discussion at the [|Village Pump]. As for the stamp, it would seem to fall under because a stamp is functionally equivalent to a banknote as a symbol of the state. And that's how it's licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support TomStar81 (Talk) 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1a. Interesting, but not well-written. Please get an experienced copyeditor to go through this. It needs more than light attention—a lot of the sentences need to be completely rewritten. Examples just from the top:
 * The very first sentence is clumsy, owing to its lack of parallel structure: "The Petlyakov Pe-8 was ... a " and then "the   "
 * I don't agree.
 * "it was used to bomb Berlin in August 1941" since you wedged the time here, does it not apply to the other qualifiers? When did it bomb other cities?
 * It bombed Berlin that one time, at a time when the Soviets were retreating like mad during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa, and scored major propaganda points for the Soviets. Something that it continued to do for the next several years even though these raids were militarily ineffective. But I did clarify the timeline.
 * The last sentence in that para: Why cram the whole bit about Molotov into the same sentence as the main mission? The resulting sentence is so long that we've forgotten the point we started with, "primary mission"
 * Umm, because it's a contrast to its normal duties? And how about easing up on the hyperbole; you're not helping your case with it.
 * Sorry. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The loss rate to all causes doubled" Jargon requires linking or explanation. Most readers will not connect with "loss rate to all causes".
 * Everybody else seems to have understood it just fine. Don't think loss rate is jargon. Pretty self-explanatory, IMO.
 * FAC reviewers are definitely not representative of our general audience. They tend to have college degrees and be familiar with jargon owing to the number of FA candidates reviewed. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sources disagree when exactly this happened" Confusing double entendre.
 * Double entendre? Explicate, please. But I have rephrased this regardless.
 * Could be read: "The sources disagreed at the time "exactly this" happened. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The remaining lead: How were they removed to service but also being using in transportation, testing, and Arctic missions? That sounds like service to me. True, but not service with combat units which I've clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't make it out of the lead, but hopefully I've illustrated the need for more work. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.