Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Petlyakov Pe-3


 * 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.


 * Promoted -MBK004 06:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Petlyakov Pe-3

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it's ready and as preparation for an eventual FACR. Please point out any issues with the quality of the prose rather than say that it needs a copyedit as the latter comment isn't really helpful. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(Talk) 17:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far, the article looks quite good in my opinion. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Great work identifying the units which operated the Pe-3. Can you break the listing down to PVO / VVS / A-VMF ? Right now they all appear to be Naval Aviation, and I'm sure they're mostly not. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I can break out the PVO units although the Naval Aviation and VVS units are pretty easy to identify. I'll have to rework the list so that they don't all appear to be Naval Aviation as most are actually VVS, but the regiments move between the various branches, just to complicate things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * No issues with external links. Your image needs alt text, and one dab link needs to be found and fixed.
 * DAB cleaned up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Expand your intro paragraph to two paragraphs if you can, IMO this helps improve the article by making the intro more professional.
 * How does it look now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More photographs would be appreciated if you can find any.
 * Not much chance with Putin reasserting copyright over WWII images.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Expand on the Finish bomber if you can; at a minimum, I would be interested to know what happened to the bomber's crew. TomStar81
 * I'll have to check my source once I get home and can access it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * there is one dab link to "Tula" which needs fixing;
 * See above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the Notes are slightly inconsistent. Compare # 2 (Gordon, pp. 381-383) to # 3 (Gordon, pp. 383-84). Either 2 should be changed to pp. 381-83, or 3 should be changed to pp. 383-384). My preferred is the second option, but I won't hold it against you whatever you chose. This mixture of style also occurs in other citations;
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Massive nitpick, but the Bibliography section is inconsistent: the Smith source has a full stop after year and isbn, but the Gordon source does not have these full stops. I suggest formatting them with the cite book template which would make them consistent, but it is not a requirement. Either way, though, please rectify so they are the same;
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * there is some inconsistency in English variation. In the General characteristics section the word "metres" appears which is British English, but in the Development section the word "liters" and "center" are found, which are US English variations. You also use US "armor", so I assume it is US English you want to use throughout. If you want to force the convert template to use US English, just add "|sp=us" to the mark up;
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * do you have citations for the list of units that used the aircraft?
 * They're fully cited in the main body. Do you think that I need to cite them again?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's not too much trouble, I'd prefer if the extra citations were added to the list of units that operated the aircraft. Readers won't always read through the entire text to verify the list, so adding the citations for the list also makes it easier for browsing readers to know that it is accurate. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Operational history section you use the date format "15th December", I don't think that this conforms with MOSDATE;
 * sometimes you use number symbols for numbers over ten (e.g. "with a total of 27 Pe-3s"), but then other times you spell it with number words (e.g. "...only fifteen were fitted on Pe-3s). I think the MOS usually prefers numbers greater than ten to be depicted with number symbols (i.e. 27 rather than twenty-seven).
 * It's a little more complicated than that. Here's the exact text: Render numbers greater than nine as figures or, with consistency within each article, render numbers over nine that take two words or fewer to say as words (about five million people; 16 or sixteen; 84 or eighty-four; 200 or two hundred; but 3.75, 544, 21 million). Words may be preferable for approximations.
 * Hmm, seems confusing. Why can't they just make it clear so people with small brains like me can understand? Anyway, seems fine to me now. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support TomStar81 (Talk) 20:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: but ask that you consider the point about the citations for the list of units before taking to FAC. All other concerns met, and the units are cited in the prose, so it is just a style issue more than anything, which shouldn't keep this article from progressing IMO. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood, I just need to shake some time loose to do that. Not in a hurry to send it to FAC, anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.