Talk:Rogožarski IK-3/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Biblioworm (talk · contribs) 21:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
It is verifiable.
It is broad in its coverage.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
It is stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Notes

Lead

Pilots flying the IK-3 claimed 11 aircraft during the eleven-day conflict, then the surviving aircraft and incomplete airframes were destroyed by their crews and factory staff ,to ensure they did not fall into German hands. - 11 → eleven; correct comma spacing after "staff"
- Done.

Background

In the late 1920s, a scheme promoted by the Royal Yugoslav Air Force (Serbo-Croatian: Vazduhoplovstvo vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije, VVKJ) and the Royal Aero Club of Yugoslavia, sent aspiring aeronautical engineers to France to develop their knowledge. - The comma after "Yugoslavia" is not necessary. Overall, something about the sentence's arrangement needs fixing. Perhaps it should be reworded: "In the late 1920s, the Royal Yugoslav Air Force (Serbo-Croatian: Vazduhoplovstvo vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije, VVKJ) and the Royal Aero Club of Yugoslavia promoted a scheme to send aspiring aeronautical engineers to France to develop their knowledge."
- Done.
Ljubomir Ilić and Kosta Sivčev went through this program but when they returned to Yugoslavia... - Comma between "but" and "when"
Frustrated by this, in 1931 they decided to design a replacement for the Czechoslovakian-built Avia BH-33E biplane fighter then in service with the VVKJ. - Place "in 1931" after "decided"; comma between "fighter" and "then"
Working in a basement in Belgrade then in Ilić's apartment in Novi Sad, they devoted their spare time secretly to work on their design. - The first part of this sentence is run-on. Possible rewording: "Working in a basement in Belgrade, and later in Ilic's apartment..." Also place "secretly" before "devoted".
Their original concept was for a low-wing monoplane with retractable landing gear but contemporary thinking led them to evolve their initial ideas into a strut-braced high-wing monoplane armed with a hub-firing autocannon and fuselage-mounted synchronised machine guns. - Something about "concept was for" sounds slightly awkward. Perhaps we could say: "They initially planned a low-wing monoplane..." There should be a comma between "gear" and "but". Alternatively, maybe the last part (after "but") should be a separate sentence that starts with "However"—in its current state, it is simply too long.
The gull-wing design was intended to have power, speed, manoeuvrability, climb and firepower. - A design itself cannot actually have firepower. It would be better to say that the design "was intended to increase power, speed, manoeuvrability, climb and firepower."
The design concept for what became the Ikarus IK-2, was submitted to the VVKJ on 22 September 1933 - Remove comma and add period to end of sentence
I see two citations for this section. Is citation [1] for all the text before it, and citation [2] for the last sentence?
- Done, and yes to the question.

Design and development

...and like the IK-2 was developed privately by Ilić and Sivčev at first. - Delete "at first" and add "initially" before "developed"
A scale model was tested in the Eiffel-built wind tunnel in Paris but the pair soon realised... - Comma before "but"
Slobodan Zrnić, the head of construction at the Yugoslav State Aircraft Factory at Kraljevo was recruited, having worked as a specialist aircraft engineer in France. - Change "Factory at Kraljevo" to "Factory in Kraljevo"; comma after "Kraljevo"
This name was changed, possibly due to the similarities between the Cyrillic "З" (Z) and the Arabic numeral "3", the aircraft becoming known as the IK-3. - Is "This name was changed" necessary? If not, it can be deleted, and "becoming" can simply be changed to "became"

Done.

G'day Biblioworm, just checking if anything else needs sorting. Cheers for the review so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Sorry about that. I was finishing up another review, and I will return to this one shortly. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 22:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biblioworm just checking the status on this one. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biblioworm, given this is the oldest review on en WP, this review has been open for over 50 days, and you appear to be on wikibreak (not having edited for a month), I'm going to ask for your review to be vacated and put back in the queue. Thanks for your work on it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm asking for a second opinion on this review, as the reviewer hasn't been active for nearly a month, this review has been open for over 50 days, and the nomination is the oldest on en WP (goes back to December last year). I'd appreciate it if someone would step-in and complete the review. Thanks in advance! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Reviewer:--Petebutt (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
It is verifiable.
It is broad in its coverage.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
It is stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Second opinion

I don't think this is quite ready to be promoted, contra Petebutt's brief review. A careful reading reveals some prose issues still outstanding, including in the sections that Biblioworm never got to. Some issues found on a quick skim, since I don't have time for a full review just now:

Lead

I think this should be two paragraphs and cover a bit more of the body of the article; while WP:LEAD allows one or two paragraphs, this is very near the border of the two or three paragraph length, and I think it could profitably and reasonably be expanded.
Pilots flying the IK-3 claimed 11 aircraft during the 11-day conflict: "claimed 11 aircraft": claimed what? To have shot them down? Also, the two part of this sentence should be separated. I'd like to suggest that the next sentence start with the reason (to prevent the Germans from getting them) why the planes were destroyed.
- Expanded with production information and armament, and grammar suggestion adopted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The final sentence is a bit of an odd duck. What does had time to start preliminary development even mean, in this context? Wouldn't a simple "also started preliminary development" be valid?
Also, that sentence's could meet and defeat the high performance bomber prototypes then in development needs explanation for context: which countries were developing these bombers? Not Yugoslavia, I assume.
- They had completed the design concept for the IK-2, so had more time to work on a totally new low-wing design (which became the IK-3). The bombers they were likely thinking of were German and Italian designs, but the source isn't that specific, so I have just added "potential adversaries". I have also tweaked those sentences, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design and development

I'd revise the first sentence so it's two independent clauses; it's really two connected but distinct ideas.
The first sentence of the second paragraph also needs work: it doesn't say when the design was submitted but says that an approval should have been made in mid-1936 rather than the following March—what justification is there for that "should have", if approval delays due to reluctance appear to have been typical (as in the IK-2)? Also, the wording's a bit odd: "faced with" isn't quite right.
- I think I've addressed these points now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planned developments

Development of this new IK-5, commenced when the production IK-3s was being completed. Beyond the prose issues in this sentence, the facts don't seem to match up. Production IK-3s were delivered in 1940, but if the decision to order the IK-5 prototype was made back in 1939, development of the IK-5 had to start much earlier. It would be best to give an actual date for when development started on the IK=5.
- It isn't clear when design commenced, only that it was commenced on the back of the success of the IK-3. I have reviewed the source, added a bit and re-worked it. Let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operational history

The first sentence is confusing; I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Fifth paragraph: please make it more clear that it was the Germans at Zemun who had used the fence to separate the planes to be scrapped and those that were still serviceable. (The Yugoslavs moving this fence so the IK-3s were on the "scrap" side is a great detail.)
The penultimate sentence in this paragraph needs a bit of grammatical work.
- I think I've addressed these issues. Let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I'm out of time, and may not have more until early next week. Still, I thought it was important that you got some response given the disappearance of Biblioworm, and the not-very-useful extra comments from late August. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your work on this review so far. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I see that Peacemaker67 has addressed all your comments. If it passes GA criteria please pass the article and close the review. The review is 2 months old and the nomination is alarmingly 9 months old. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, I hope to be able to get back to this soon, but haven't been able to devote the concentrated time needed as yet. This has indeed been waiting a long time—something I am sorry about for Peacemaker67's sake—but I am not prepared to pass it without a more complete examination; what I listed above came from a quick check. Incidentally, while this has technically been nominated for nine months, the nomination was unfortunately placed inside the WikiProject banner shell template, contrary to GA instructions, where the bot that builds the GA nominations page could not see it, so it wasn't actually listed on the nominations page until July 17, mere hours before Biblioworm opened this review ten weeks ago. That's a great shame, and the abandoned review is another, but I can't be as alarmed at the nomination's age as you are, given the circumstances. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third review

I've been asked to take a look and hopefully finalise this review, and will be doing so shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox checks -- no dab, EL or copyvio issues reported.

Prose/content -- copyedited so let me know any concerns there; outstanding points:

I'm a little unsure of the Background section from "They originally planned..." on. Saying they began with a low-wing design, which evolved into a high-wing design, suggests both were for the same purpose and they felt the latter would work better. Next we hear the gull-wing became the Ikarus IK-2 but we're not told what it was for, and then find out that the monoplane was for bomber-destroying but was that its original purpose (assuming the "new low-wing monoplane" was in effect the monoplane design they started with)? Do you get where I'm coming from? Also I think we need to explain why a gull-wing helped firepower, since that design seemed to use the same armament as the monoplane eventually boasted. Further, you say "high-wing" initially, then say "gull-wing", as though the two were synonymous (I assume they mean the same aircraft) but not all high-wings are gull-wing.
- I've deleted the sentence about firepower etc, it has been raised by earlier reviewers too. I think it is essentially a motherhood statement of desirable characteristics and doesn't add much to the article. I've also tweaked the wing bit.
Also, I don't know that the uninitiated would necessarily get what "hub-firing" means; I'd suggest either link hub, or spell out and say "firing through the propeller hub" (BTW, I know I let this through at the Ikarus IK-2 ACR but it really should be spelt out or linked there too).
- Done.
Under Design and development, do we know why they went for a new engine that was less powerful than the prototype's?
- Probably due to the availability of the licence-built engines from Avia rather than relying on a French manufacturer, but the source isn't that specific.
Under Operational history, do we have no idea how many Ju 87s Gogić and the other IK-3 pilot claimed on 11 April?
- One each, done.

Structure -- layout looks logical and in line with similar articles.

Images -- licensing looks okay.

Referencing -- sources look reliable and couldn't spot any formatting issues.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Ian. All addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I tweaked a little bit re. the hub-mounted cannon, everything else reads well to me, tks PM. I'm ready to pass this but just to cover all bases, I might leave it for 24 hours or so on the chance that any of the previous reviewers want to check in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ian Rose, thank you very much. Peacemaker67, there are only a couple of things that caught my eye in a final read-through. The first was in the lead section: rather than saying the prototype was "lost", which strikes me as less than forthright wording, say "crashed". (This comes under the 1b criterion, "words to watch".) The second is the final sentence of the "Planned developments" subsection: you've just been talking about the design of the IK-5, and I expected that when you started talking about the post-war SV-49, it would be based on the IK-5 ... but no, it says the IK-3 is what it was based on. I was wondering whether this was a typo, though given that it's also in the lead, that would seem to be unlikely. If it is indeed the IK-3, then I think there needs to be something that notes that after the war, the IK-5 was not pursued further, but the SV-49 aircraft were from the IK-3 lineage. As it is, the tale of the IK-5 stops abruptly, and its fate needs to be stated. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good points. Both now addressed, I believe. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll pass this now, well done all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]