Jump to content

Talk:Yakovlev Yak-15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleYakovlev Yak-15 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 5, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Surviving aircraft

[edit]

The aircraft in the Wadim Sadoroschny Museeum is a replica... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.166.242 (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Data

[edit]

Data quoted from http://www.aviation.ru/Yak/#15 by the owner of aviation.ru

Lightness

[edit]

Lightest? What about the He 162? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.207.3 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debatable if He162 actually enterred service. I know lots were delivered but did they enter service proper?Petebutt (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer my own question:- "February saw deliveries of the He 162 to its first operational unit, I./JG 1 (1st Group of Jagdgeschwader 1 (1st Fighter Wing), "

And yes the He162 was lighter, quoted as 1,660 kg Empty.

Yak-15 1,852kg Empty

I shall remove the offending statement.Petebutt (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Exactly what jet aircraft entered service in the US military in 1944? The first allied jet was the Gloster Meteor to my knowledge, and it enters British service in July 1944.
The P-80 Shooting star first FLEW in January 1944, it didnt enter trial service until December 1944.
And it wasnt accepted by USAAF until February 1945. Meanwhile the P-59 flew in late 1942 making the comment even more odd.
The preceeding comment about 2 years after German introduction is also very odd and doesnt make sense either. German jet test planes flew earlier, the He-280 started flying in 1940, but jet fighters entered service in 1944. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DW75 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Yakovlev Yak-15/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 15:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: I changed the dab flyby to flypast as that is the usual term.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    so that it exhausted underneath the middle of the fuselage. Needs rephrasing - "exhausted" is the condition of being tired, woen out.
    Not necessarily. See #10 at [2]
    Yes, but it still reads clumsily. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, much better. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ''Very few changes were made to the metal fuselage, aside from adding a steel heatshield to the bottom of the fuselage, other than at the aircraft's nose. This was recontoured to house the armament of two 23-millimeter (0.91 in) Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 autocannon, an additional fuel tank above the engine and attachment points for the engine. a little clumsy, could be phrased better.
    How does it read now?
    Much the same, I am afraid. The main problem is that "ery few changes were made to the metal fuselage, aside from adding a steel heatshield to the bottom of the fuselage, other than at the aircraft's nose." the bolded phrase interrupts the flow here. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    it was transferred to TsAGI I think it would be better to use the full name for the institute at this first mention.
    Done.
    The wings were too thin to house they were so they were redesigned to retract into the fuselage. Needs rewording, as it stands it implies that the wings would retract.
    Done.
    I fixed it by changing "they were" to "it was"
    I will look at the lead again when the point about broadness of coverage has been addressed, but it looks a bit thin, not covering much of the development.
    Hard to summarize the development, though if you can think of something...
    Well the number of years in development, and a summary of operational service.
    I added the production date and numbers. The summary of operational service was already there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Statements are adequately cited, sources are RS, no evidence of OR. The on-line source supported the statement, assume good faith for off-line sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Good coverage of design and development, but nothing about its history of service in the Soviet air force.
    Operational history of Cold-war era aircraft is very sparse, unlike the development history of the aircraft.
    Well, if that is so the article, which purports to be about the aircraft, not just its development clearly fails the criterion. When did production cease? When was it withdrawn from service? Are there any still in flying condition? There must be something on this available. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I found one surviving aircraft. Production data is already there. No RS gives withdrawal date. Usage details added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    One image, licensed correctly
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it meets the criteria, so happy to list. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yakovlev Yak-15. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yakovlev_Yak-15&oldid=1205293091"