Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Images[edit]

  • Infobox image is good, as is 3-view.
  • Engine diagram is a non-free image. There is a fair use rational, but for higher-level reviews you should consider asking the editor who made the 3-view diagram to make a matching diagram showing the engine arrangement.
  • Alt text needed for higher level reviews.

Content[edit]

  • What is "VRDK"? It is wiki-linked in the specs section to gas compressor. Can you explain the acronym? If it's a company name then it shouldn't be wikilinked in the specs as it is. (If it is the company name, can you spell it out once somewhere?) note-I've just noticed that it is spelled out in the the next section. Maybe in the lead refer to it as a "motorjet", as it is not apparent what it is immediately?
  • Consider making a comparison between the VRDK and the modern afterburner. They seems rather similar, and it may help a non-expert reader understand it more easily.
  • Consider listing the specific fuel consumption in the more modern lb/lbf-hr (or kg/kN-hr) (I think it would be 1.3 lb/lbf-hr based on the included figures).
  • What happened to the torpedo-bomber escort idea?
  • Is there any information as to what happened to any of the aircraft after the program was canceled and it failed trails? Any in museums?

Organization[edit]

  • I think you have enough design information there to split the "Design and Development" section into the standard "Development" and "Design" sections. Honestly, your second and third paragraphs, with maybe one more little paragraph, would be all you need for a "Design" section. Splitting the sections would help break up the sea of text that makes up the bulk of the article as well.

Closing Thoughts[edit]

The article has enough there for it to be a GA article, good work! There are plenty of things to work on to make it a better article, and I hope you can take my suggestions to improve it further!

Reviewer: SidewinderX (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]