Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sukhoi Su-33

Sukhoi Su-33

 * 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 as No Consensus Buggie111 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra"

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I think the article is complete and now needs to be reviewed for FAC. I need everyone's help to see the article through. Thanks Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - why are some of your shortened citation harvlinked and others not? Also, some of your multi-author harvlinks appear not to be working correctly. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments [by Anotherclown]
 * No dabs (no action required).
 * External links check out (no action required).
 * Images all have alt text (no action required).
 * The citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
 * "The Yakovlev Yak-38, the Soviet's only operational VTOL fighter, was unable to undertake its role during the early 1970s." Why? Half a sentence here would add context IMO.
 * "admitting" doesn't seem right here "carrier capable of admitting STOL aircraft." Perhaps "carrier capable of operating STOL aircraft."
 * Same here "to admit the MiG-23s and Su-24s..."
 * "the Project 1160 carrier would be able to admit the MiG-23s and Su-24s, but was abandoned..." Why?
 * This doesn't quite make sense to me: "To prepare for the operations of the Su-27K, along with the rival MiG-29K on-board the new carrier, namely the development of the steam catapult, arresting gear, optical and radio landing systems, as well as the training of pilots, an establishment was set up in Crimea." Specifically the use of "namely". Perhaps reword?
 * This is also unclear: "A takeoff ramp was installed at the complex, where takeoffs would be executed to assure that the MiG29Ks and Su-27Ks would be able to operate from carriers." Specifically "where takeoffs would be executed". I'm assuming the ramp was used to test the capability of the aircraft to operate from the new carriers?
 * Yes it was. See 1:18.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 10:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These two sentences could be worked into one: "The Su-33 carries guided missiles such as the R-73 (four) and R-27E (six), supplemented by the 150-round 30 mm GSh-30-1.[18] It has 12 hardpoints." Suggestion "The Su-33 carries guided missiles such as the R-73 (four) and R-27E (six) on 12 hardpoints, supplemented by the 150-round 30 mm GSh-30-1..." or something similar.
 * "and thirteen Su-27Ks" should be "and 13 Su-27Ks" per WP:MOSNUM.
 * "At the sixth Zhuhai Airshow in autumn 2006, Aleksander Denisov, lieutenant general of the Russian Air Force." This should be "Lietenant General Aleksander Denisov" per WP:SURNAME.
 * "publicly confirmed at the news conference". What news conference? Probably best to reword as "publicly confirmed at a news conference."
 * This could be written more economically: "the plane's arresting cable broke after landing on the Admiral Kuznetsov in Northern Atlantic. The arresting cable broke due to the high speed above the limit." Specificially you say the cable broke in two sentences. This could work better written in a single sentence. Consider: "the plane's arresting cable broke after a landing on the Admiral Kuznetsov in the Northern Atlantic at high speed..." (or something similar).
 * Done. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 10:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of my points have been dealt with so I'm happy to support now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments.
 * Thanks Phil, I believe your edits in response to AC's comments all check out, except for "Lietenant", and instead of "the development ... proceeded, as well as the training of pilots ...", I'd prefer "... and pilots were trained". - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed "Lietenant" - thats embarrassing as it appears to my typo from the above comments (plus I forgot to sign before...) Taking two and administering an uppercut. Anotherclown (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this and all your reviews, AC. - Dank (push to talk) 11:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Continuing: 'Flanker': "Flanker" per WP:MOS
 * "With the downsizing": Look for ways around using "with ...ing".
 * "both the People's Republic of China and India": Was there something you wanted to emphasize or contrast by using the "both", or can we do without it? - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming we can do without the "both": "There were negotiations with both the People's Republic of China and India regarding purchase, but these did not lead to sales.": Attempted sales to China and India fell through.
 * "operationally": in operations, or in an operation
 * "24 examples": 24 aircraft - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "nose-wheel": in other articles, you don't hyphenate it. I don't have a preference.
 * "the Su-33 has a strengthened undercarriage and structure, folding wings and stabilators for carrier operations.": I'm not sure how much of that is "for carrier operations". I can see how folding wings would make sense for carrer operations.
 * Butting in, Dan, I'd expect all the above to apply to carrier-based aircraft. With little runway on the deck, the aircraft can come down hard, requiring the extra strength -- and of course the folding wings/stabilisers are there to aid storage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "In terms of range and payload, the aircraft is superior to its rival Mikoyan counterpart, the MiG-29K, however the MiG-29 is a multirole platform with more advanced avionics, making it capable of a wider range of missions": The aircraft's range and payload are greater [if both are superior ... or is it just the range that's superior for a given payload?] than those of the rival MiG-29K, but the Mikoyan fighter has more advanced avionics and is capable of a wider range of missions. [And ... link appropriately. And ... I think that it's hard for most readers to make sense out of "multirole", except in the sense of "capable of a wider range of missions" ... and you say that.  If you want to be more specific, then I'd recommend listing the roles.] - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Ian, you're spot on about your post above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs)


 * Continuing. A general comment: please stop writing things like "the development of the steam catapult, arresting gear, optical and radio landing systems proceeded", when the steam catapult was abandoned but presumably the rest were developed, and stop using the same generic verb tenses for everything regardless of what happened ... be clear about whether something would have done or did such-and-such. It's annoying as ... well, it's annoying.  But it's not your fault ... some engineers are deliberately deceptive about whether they ever got something to work and whether they ever got funding, and the rest, not intending any deception, have followed suit and adopted the fuzzy language as a general writing style.  It's impossible to make sense of. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Project 1143.5 carriers": ?
 * "to validate the takeoff ramp": ?
 * "Three Sukhoi T10s (–3, –24 and –25)": I'd probably go with: The Sukhoi T10-3, T10-24 and T10-25 [with hyphens]. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "a lighter multirole fighter": same comment on "multirole" as above, although here below the lead, I'm open to the argument that it may be necessary to say and link "multirole", in addition to saying which roles you mean.
 * Not yet. Okay, I got down almost halfway, to Testing. I know you want to write a lot of A-class articles, and that's doable, but you're going to need some help.  If I were in the same position, what I would probably do first is just put articles up, one at a time, at WP:PRH and our A-class review and WP:AV's A-class review and ask for help, and see if anyone jumps in and helps.  I would also try to help other people's aviation articles get through reviews.  If that started working, I'd take that as a sign that I had found a useful collaboration. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: I've skimmed the article again, and I think the things that Sturm tagged, and more, need attention. Phil hasn't been back. Also ... the reviews have been high-quality, but I think there's no substitute for reviewers from the aviation project on aviation articles ... and I might be wrong, but the only one I recognize from WP:AV is Sturm, and he's not in favor of promotion, either. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've also been involved in the Aviation project but, as with Storm, it's not my main pigeon. I agree we should have more dedicated members of that project reviewing these things, and you'll find that they show up to reviews of some aircraft articles, though perhaps more often to the ones written by long-standing members of the AV "fold". I've said elsewhere that I think we should continue listing articles here because our ACR process has tended to be stronger than at AV, however we should post cross-notices of MilHist ACRs for aviation articles at that project to try and drum up interest. It's probably a bit late for this one since it's already over the time limit, although given it has two supports, if Phil did undertake to address o/s issues from you and Storm post-haste, I'd favour leaving it open a bit longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're a jack of all trades Ian! Agreed on all counts. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * D'oh ... just realized that the 30,000 articles on RAAF officers that Ian's written and I've copyedited are all tagged by WP:AV ... not sure why I didn't make the connection before, must be some missing neurons :) - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments  -- I've commenced my review/copyedit; will aim to continue tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ...a larger weapons undercarriage doesn't sound right. "Undercarriage" usually means the landing gear; do we mean a larger weapons bay, or underwing pylons capable of taking larger weapons, or what?
 * It has been speculated that further modifications to a new production batch would include a phased-array radar, thrust-vectoring nozzles, and long-range anti-ship missiles doesn't really work for me. First of all I'd suggest that any "speculation" should be attibuted in the text, as we don't know whether it was from the author of the cited source, or him describing others' thoughts; secondly, what became of this -- did a new production batch indeed include these mods, or not?
 * You probably should try linking, or else briefly describe, "non-flare" landings.
 *  autumn 2006 -- which hemisphere? Should give a month or least say "early" or "late" 2006 instead.
 * That's pretty much it from me for the prose review. Structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials look okay so far. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see these have been largely actioned so close to support, however I think you mean "the aircraft's nose is not raised prior to touchdown", rather than "not rotated"; it might even be better to re-word to something like "the aircraft does not assume a nose-up attitude prior to touchdown"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, think that's better, happy to support -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like the Russian article of the plane documents 6 crashes, compared to 2 on this article. Please put your Support on hold for now as I try to translate these accidents (a bit of help would be nice as I don't speak Russian). Some of these accidents are attributed to Russian books and might not be readily coherent as to what they mean. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 23:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'm afraid I don't know Russian either, although I know someone who does, a bit, if you get stuck. On the other hand, the heading "notable accidents" implies that not everything has to be documented here, and if you've only come across two in your extensive research, perhaps they're ipso facto the "most notable" ones... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on prose. I stopped reading after the first paragraph of the design section which uses two tenses. I've liberally sprinkled awkward tags where needed up to that point. Fix these and do a more thorough edit of the remainder of the prose and I'll review the rest of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Butting in to clarify re. Design: after the first, introductory sentence, it's all present tense in that section, which I think is reasonable enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please fail this review now, the article is obviously not up to scratch. 00:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs)
 * Well as I've intimated above, obviously two reviewers (AC and myself) think it is up to scratch, and if you felt you could dedicate some time to addressing Dank's and Storm's points I'm sure they'd be a case for continuing the review -- one (pragmatic) benefit is of course we wouldn't all be coming back at some later date for another one! However if you can't manage that now then we'll naturally respect your wish to withdraw it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made the changes. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 01:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was looking for some kind of response to my "Comments" above. Also, something that I think was right before has gone wrong: "work proceeded on the development of the steam catapult, arresting gear, optical and radio landing systems proceeded." - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)