1049:, 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.
922:
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.
857:, 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
607:
596:
585:
571:
559:
544:
532:
518:
233:
219:
207:
185:
290:- 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."
42:
320:- 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.
472:
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
921:
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
707:
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
865:
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.
737:
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
680:
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
620:
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:
449:, 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,
317:
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
640:: "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.
767:
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
1027:
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,
287:
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
925:
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
791:
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.
268:
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
741:
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?
836:
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,
313:- 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".
47:
326:- 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."
363:
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.
80:
70:
634:
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.
126:
958:
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.
845:
369:
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.
305:
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.
420:
122:
52:
107:
99:
311:
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.
841:
156:
75:
854:
837:
335:
I see two citations for this section. Is citation for all the text before it, and citation for the last sentence?
371:- Is "This name was changed" necessary? If not, it can be deleted, and "becoming" can simply be changed to "became"
931:
Also, I don't know that the uninitiated would necessarily get what "hub-firing" means; I'd suggest either link
704:
I'd revise the first sentence so it's two independent clauses; it's really two connected but distinct ideas.
525:
178:
115:
17:
1068:
1018:
816:
779:
746:
716:
686:
648:
478:
454:
437:
393:
890:
I've been asked to take a look and hopefully finalise this review, and will be doing so shortly. Cheers,
1054:
871:
797:
677:
needs explanation for context: which countries were developing these bombers? Not Yugoslavia, I assume.
415:
150:
330:
The design concept for what became the Ikarus IK-2, was submitted to the VVKJ on 22 September 1933
1089:
1033:
999:
895:
501:
299:
Ljubomir Ilić and Kosta Sivčev went through this program but when they returned to Yugoslavia...
92:
357:
A scale model was tested in the Eiffel-built wind tunnel in Paris but the pair soon realised...
1064:
1046:
1014:
833:
812:
775:
742:
712:
708:
been typical (as in the IK-2)? Also, the wording's a bit odd: "faced with" isn't quite right.
682:
670:
even mean, in this context? Wouldn't a simple "also started preliminary development" be valid?
644:
474:
450:
433:
405:
389:
630:
I think this should be two paragraphs and cover a bit more of the body of the article; while
324:
The gull-wing design was intended to have power, speed, manoeuvrability, climb and firepower.
1050:
867:
827:
793:
578:
410:
Sorry about that. I was finishing up another review, and I will return to this one shortly.
226:
446:
429:
411:
385:
146:
967:, do we have no idea how many Ju 87s Gogić and the other IK-3 pilot claimed on 11 April?
955:, do we know why they went for a new engine that was less powerful than the prototype's?
858:
631:
551:
199:
735:
Development of this new IK-5, commenced when the production IK-3s was being completed.
1085:
1042:
1029:
1010:
995:
936:
932:
891:
862:
497:
1093:
1072:
1058:
1037:
1022:
1003:
899:
875:
849:
820:
801:
783:
750:
720:
690:
652:
505:
482:
458:
441:
424:
397:
160:
643:
Expanded with production information and armament, and grammar suggestion adopted.
940:
675:
could meet and defeat the high performance bomber prototypes then in development
365:- Change "Factory at Kraljevo" to "Factory in Kraljevo"; comma after "Kraljevo"
388:, just checking if anything else needs sorting. Cheers for the review so far.
771:
The penultimate sentence in this paragraph needs a bit of grammatical work.
764:
The first sentence is confusing; I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
351:...and like the IK-2 was developed privately by Ilić and Sivčev at first.
913:-- copyedited so let me know any concerns there; outstanding points:
638:
Pilots flying the IK-3 claimed 11 aircraft during the 11-day conflict
307:- Place "in 1931" after "decided"; comma between "fighter" and "then"
991:-- sources look reliable and couldn't spot any formatting issues.
774:
I think I've addressed these issues. Let me know what you think?
943:
ACR but it really should be spelt out or linked there too).
979:-- layout looks logical and in line with similar articles.
353:- Delete "at first" and add "initially" before "developed"
808:
134:
103:
807:
Thanks very much for your work on this review so far.
666:
The final sentence is a bit of an odd duck. What does
1063:
Good points. Both now addressed, I believe. Thanks,
432:
just checking the status on this one. Thanks again,
271:- 11 → eleven; correct comma spacing after "staff"
681:also tweaked those sentences, see what you think?
1084:Okay, I'll pass this now, well done all. Cheers,
582:and other media, where possible and appropriate.
230:and other media, where possible and appropriate.
332:- Remove comma and add period to end of sentence
8:
935:, or spell out and say "firing through the
907:-- no dab, EL or copyvio issues reported.
30:
939:" (BTW, I know I let this through at the
711:I think I've addressed these points now.
668:had time to start preliminary development
61:
33:
734:
674:
667:
637:
368:
362:
356:
350:
329:
323:
316:
310:
304:
298:
286:
267:
7:
24:
861:, where the bot that builds the
605:
594:
583:
569:
557:
542:
530:
516:
421:WikiProject Reforming Knowledge.
301:- Comma between "but" and "when"
231:
217:
205:
183:
876:04:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
850:03:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
338:Done, and yes to the question.
1:
821:01:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
802:04:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
784:01:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
751:01:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
721:00:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
691:00:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
653:00:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
483:01:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
459:01:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
1094:23:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
606:
595:
584:
570:
558:
543:
531:
517:
232:
218:
206:
184:
1073:07:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1059:06:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1038:06:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1023:04:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1004:07:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
917:I'm a little unsure of the
900:03:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
506:07:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
442:02:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
1109:
425:22:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
985:-- licensing looks okay.
398:05:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
161:21:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
855:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
838:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
1045:, thank you very much.
1009:Thanks for the review,
811:are my edits. Regards,
513:reasonably well written
171:reasonably well written
953:Design and development
699:Design and development
673:Also, that sentence's
345:Design and development
738:started on the IK=5.
576:It is illustrated by
552:neutral point of view
539:broad in its coverage
224:It is illustrated by
200:neutral point of view
192:broad in its coverage
729:Planned developments
359:- Comma before "but"
18:Talk:Rogožarski IK-3
1069:click to talk to me
1019:click to talk to me
965:Operational history
817:click to talk to me
780:click to talk to me
759:Operational history
747:click to talk to me
717:click to talk to me
687:click to talk to me
649:click to talk to me
479:click to talk to me
455:click to talk to me
438:click to talk to me
394:click to talk to me
473:advance! Regards,
1013:. All addressed.
423:
89:
88:
1100:
831:
609:
608:
598:
597:
587:
586:
573:
572:
561:
560:
546:
545:
534:
533:
520:
519:
419:
409:
235:
234:
221:
220:
209:
208:
187:
186:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1099:
1098:
1097:
970:One each, done.
888:
859:GA instructions
825:
761:
731:
701:
663:
627:
618:
549:It follows the
491:
403:
347:
283:
264:
259:
197:It follows the
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1106:
1104:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
974:
973:
972:
971:
961:
960:
959:
949:
948:
947:
929:
928:
927:
905:Toolbox checks
887:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
863:GA nominations
789:
788:
787:
786:
769:
765:
760:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
730:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
705:
700:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
671:
662:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
635:
626:
623:
617:
616:Second opinion
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
588:
574:
562:
547:
535:
521:
490:
489:Other comments
487:
486:
485:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
382:
381:
380:
379:
373:
372:
366:
360:
354:
346:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
333:
327:
321:
314:
308:
302:
296:
295:
294:
282:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
263:
260:
258:
255:
253:
251:
250:
249:
248:
236:
222:
210:
195:
188:
174:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1105:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1001:
997:
992:
990:
986:
984:
980:
978:
969:
968:
966:
962:
957:
956:
954:
950:
945:
944:
942:
938:
937:propeller hub
934:
930:
924:
923:
920:
916:
915:
914:
912:
911:Prose/content
908:
906:
902:
901:
897:
893:
885:
877:
873:
869:
864:
860:
856:
853:
852:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
829:
824:
823:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
804:
803:
799:
795:
785:
781:
777:
773:
772:
770:
766:
763:
762:
758:
752:
748:
744:
740:
739:
736:
733:
732:
728:
722:
718:
714:
710:
709:
706:
703:
702:
698:
692:
688:
684:
679:
678:
676:
672:
669:
665:
664:
660:
654:
650:
646:
642:
641:
639:
636:
633:
629:
628:
624:
622:
615:
603:
600:
599:
592:
589:
581:
580:
575:
567:
563:
555:
553:
548:
540:
536:
528:
527:
522:
514:
510:
509:
508:
507:
503:
499:
495:
488:
484:
480:
476:
471:
468:
467:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
444:
443:
439:
435:
431:
428:
427:
426:
422:
417:
413:
407:
402:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
387:
377:
376:
375:
374:
370:
367:
364:
361:
358:
355:
352:
349:
348:
344:
337:
336:
334:
331:
328:
325:
322:
319:
315:
312:
309:
306:
303:
300:
297:
292:
291:
289:
285:
284:
280:
273:
272:
270:
266:
265:
261:
256:
254:
246:
243:
242:
240:
237:
229:
228:
223:
215:
211:
203:
201:
196:
193:
189:
181:
180:
175:
172:
168:
167:
166:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
1083:
1065:Peacemaker67
1047:Peacemaker67
1015:Peacemaker67
993:
988:
987:
982:
981:
976:
975:
964:
952:
918:
910:
909:
904:
903:
889:
886:Third review
834:Peacemaker67
813:Peacemaker67
790:
776:Peacemaker67
743:Peacemaker67
713:Peacemaker67
683:Peacemaker67
645:Peacemaker67
619:
601:
590:
577:
565:
550:
538:
524:
512:
493:
492:
475:Peacemaker67
469:
451:Peacemaker67
434:Peacemaker67
406:Peacemaker67
390:Peacemaker67
383:
252:
244:
238:
225:
213:
198:
191:
177:
170:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
1051:BlueMoonset
989:Referencing
941:Ikarus IK-2
868:BlueMoonset
832:I see that
828:BlueMoonset
794:BlueMoonset
104:visual edit
919:Background
661:Background
526:verifiable
447:Biblioworm
430:Biblioworm
386:Biblioworm
288:knowledge.
281:Background
179:verifiable
147:Biblioworm
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
977:Structure
602:Pass/Fail
494:Reviewer:
245:Pass/Fail
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
1086:Ian Rose
1043:Ian Rose
1030:Ian Rose
996:Ian Rose
994:Cheers,
892:Ian Rose
768:detail.)
498:Petebutt
157:contribs
76:Criteria
632:WP:LEAD
591:Overall
239:Overall
127:history
108:history
94:Article
983:Images
963:Under
951:Under
579:images
566:stable
564:It is
554:policy
537:It is
523:It is
511:It is
412:Biblio
384:G'day
269:hands.
227:images
214:stable
212:It is
202:policy
190:It is
176:It is
169:It is
946:Done.
809:These
378:Done.
318:guns.
293:Done.
274:Done.
257:Notes
136:Watch
16:<
1090:talk
1055:talk
1034:talk
1000:talk
926:bit.
896:talk
872:talk
846:mail
842:talk
798:talk
625:Lead
502:talk
470:Note
416:talk
262:Lead
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
1011:Ian
933:hub
1092:)
1071:)
1057:)
1036:)
1021:)
1002:)
898:)
874:)
848:)
844:•
819:)
800:)
782:)
749:)
719:)
689:)
651:)
604::
568:.
556:.
541:.
529:.
504:)
496:--
481:)
457:)
440:)
418:)
396:)
241::
216:.
204:.
182:.
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
1088:(
1067:(
1053:(
1032:(
1017:(
998:(
894:(
870:(
840:(
830::
826:@
815:(
796:(
778:(
745:(
715:(
685:(
647:(
593::
515:.
500:(
477:(
453:(
436:(
414:(
408::
404:@
392:(
247::
194:.
173:.
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.