Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sukhoi Su-37

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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhoi Su-37

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-class review again after having rewritten it. It's a short article, and any comment is welcomed. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Suggestions: G'day, I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the infobox, the link to the Su-35 should be moved to the first mention
- Y Moved. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there appears to be a mix of US and British English variation, e.g. "supermaneuverability" (US) but "programme" (British)
- Y Should be British English. Changed to "supermanoeuvrability". --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this needs a ref: "This lesson was incorporated into the modernized Su-35, which made its first flight in February 2008."
- Reworded, and added references. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
is this a typo: "...lack of energy will means he.." (specifically "means" instead of "mean")?
- Y Added {{sic}} template. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"removal of canards, the design of which imposed a weight penalty on the design..." suggest tweaking to "removal of canards, which imposed a weight penalty on the design.." (to remove repetition of "design")
- I know what you mean, and the phrase is referring to the canards; however, I'd like to make it clear that it's not referring to the removal of the canards. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, your solution looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
typo: "using the its flying test beds..."
- Y Removed the. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Sukhoi_Su-37_at_Farnborough_1996_airshow.jpg: is that the licensing provided in the OTRS ticket? It's typically used only for text-based works. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't exactly understand your point. Are you saying the photo isn't licensed for use in an online article? Perhaps I can replace it with File:Sukhoi Su-37 (14260362128).jpg? --Sp33dyphil (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, at this point I'm wondering what exactly the OTRS ticket says about the licensing, because this one seems an odd choice and I know Commons was trying to move away from it - did the ticket specify this exact tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm unable to verify the the ticket as I wasn't the person who uploaded it. In addition, it seems like only someone who has an Wikimedia account could verify it. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Welcome back Phil, and well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank. Thank you for the edits. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment:~~ Support The sentence ...the aircraft pitched up to 180 degrees and maintained the tail-first position for several seconds... merges two specific terms: "pitch up" (i.e. to pull the nose up), and "up to" (i.e. a maxium of), and I got confused as to what the sentence was actually saying. It's not helped by the preceding link of "Super Cobra" to "Pugachev's Cobra"; the two manoeuvers do not appear to be the same - Pugachev's manoeuver pitches up only as far as the vertical, i.e. 90 degrees. Maybe amend the previous sentence to say that the Super Cobra is a variation of Pugachev's Cobra, and this sentence to say that the aircraft pitched 180 degrees about, or something like that? Otherwise a nice, well-written article. Seems eminently A-worthy to me. FactotEm (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've removed the piped link to Pugachev's Cobra and explained what the Super Cobra is as per your suggestion. I've also reworded the phrase about the 180-degree pitch up. Thanks, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a little confused about the Super Cobra. ...the aircraft pitched up 180 degrees and maintained the tail-first position momentarily, which would theoretically allow the aircraft to fire a missile at a combat opponent. To me, "up" is around the 90 degree mark. 180 degrees means it flipped completely about, so that the aircraft travels tail first through the air. Is that what this manoeuvre is? Does it really end up flying tail first? And is it a flip, or more of a very tight loop? This doesn't affect the review, which I'm supporting. I'm just curious. FactotEm (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the book doesn't say that the aircraft travels tail-first through the air. The book also doesn't say whether it's a loop or a flip; I would think it's part of a tight loop (kulbit), since I can't imagine or have seen a fighter aircraft recovering to a normal attitude (forward level flight) after a 180-degree flip. Here's the passage from the book: "Piloted by Yevgeniy Frolov, the Su-37 stole the show at Farnborough International '96 in September - and with good reason, too. The Su-37 is capable of pitching up through 180° into a tail-first position and staying in that position long enough to fire a missile at a pursuing enemy fighter... The Super Cobra logically evolved into a 360° somersault...". So to me the missile firing at 180 degrees is an instantaneous thing–which is what the Super Cobra allows–rather than the phenomenon of the aircraft being able to fly tail-first. What do you think? --Sp33dyphil (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that this is really the place for an extended discussion - I'll take it to article talk. FactotEm (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting little article. Small for an A-class article, but looks fine. Good work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil, great to see you back here. Comments:

The decision was therefore made By whom? Try to avoid the passive voice when possible
- Y Removed the passive voice. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, critics have questioned "However" is a widely misused word and this one could easily be replaced with "although" or "nonetheless"
- Y Replaced "however" with "nonetheless". --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the pilot notable enough that that red link is likely to turn blue in the foreseeable future?

The article originally had the links to the Russian articles, but Dank had them removed; I've removed the red link to Yuri Vashuk but kept the one for Yevgeni Frolov. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the aircraft finally crash after the pilot ejected? Was there any damage or casualties on the ground?

Y Added the location of the crash. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: only image is freely licenced and I verified the OTRS ticket (and yes, strange as it may seem, that is the licence specified in the ticket).

A nice little article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for for the verification. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.