Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rogožarski IK-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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Rogožarski IK-3

 * Nominator(s): 

The Rogožarski IK-3 was the only home-grown modern monoplane fighter aircraft in service with the Royal Yugoslav Air Force when the Axis powers invaded Yugoslavia on 6 April 1941. The aircraft and their pilots gave a good account of themselves during the fighting, but were overwhelmed by the numbers of German aircraft and the expertise of the German pilots. The IK-3 design was used as the basis for the post-war Yugoslav-built Ikarus S-49 fighter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the c/e and review, Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Support: Not a lot stood out for me: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * this appears to be unreferenced: "His rate of climb was too steep and the aircraft fell into a spin at low altitude and hit the water."
 * if possible, another image or two would help to break up the text, but it isn't a requirement
 * Thanks for the review, Rupert. I've fixed the citation and added a couple of pics. Unfortunately there aren't any free pics of the IK-3 that I have been able to locate, but I've added in what I think are relevant ones of other museum aircraft mentioned in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Support -- I was the third and final GAN reviewer and passed the article there; I've checked the few edits made since then and find no issues, this meets the A-Class criteria as well. I've also reviewed images added since GAN and all licensing seems fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.