Talk:Yermolayev Yer-2

Comment

Data quoted from http://www.aviation.ru/okb.php#yer by the owner of aviation.ru

I have completely revised and expanded this article and put it in the new WPAVIATION format.Petebutt (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested table

Hi there, I was looking at this article (which I think is very good), and was wondering if there was a neater way to present the list of variants on this and other military aircraft articles. I experimented, and drew up the table below based on this list in this article - what do the prinicpal editors think, is this better than the straight list?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yermolayev Yer-2 variants
Variant	Specifications
DB-240	Two prototypes of the Yer-2 series with two 1,050 hp M-105 engines.
Yer-2;	Production version with two M-105 engines, 128 built.
Yer-2/AM-37	One aircraft re-engined with two 1,380 hp Mikulin AM-37 engines, the fastest of all Yer-2s.
Yer-2/M-40F	The first diesel-powered Yer-2, with modified wings. 1 converted from Yer-2 with two 1,500 hp Charomskiy M-40F diesel engines.
Yer-2/ACh-30B	Production version of the diesel-engined version. Performance was excellent despite the poor reliability and rough running of the Charomskiy ACh-30B diesel engines.
Yer-2ON	(Osobogo Naznachyeniya – special assignment) – Two aircraft from the Yer-2/ACh-30B production line converted with a 12 seat VIP cabin, military equipment removed and long-range fuel tanks in the bomb-bay. A third aircraft converted from a Yer-2 (1941 production) was used for shuttle flights between Irkutsk and Moscow.
Yer-2N	(Nositel – carrier) – One aircraft converted as an engine test-bed for captured Argus As 014 pulse jet engines.
Yer-2/M-120	One aircraft re-engined with 1,500 hp inverted 'Y' Klimov M-120 engines. Not confirmed.
Yer-2/MB-100	One production aircraft used as a test-bed for the 2,200 horsepower (1,600 kW) Dobrotvorskii MB-100 engine.
Yer-4	The final iteration of the Yer-2 series was a 1941 production aircraft re-engined with ACh-30BF engines. Not

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yermolayev Yer-2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dhatfield (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Focussing on copyediting and content, I would say that the topic appears well covered and text is well written. A few comments:

"factory for special construction at the scientific test institute for civil air fleet" should probably read "for the civil air fleet"

OK

"with the capture of several Soviet speed/distance records" needs a citation, as does "arrest of Bartini and his imprisonment in a Siberian Gulag in February 1938." Overall, more inline citations needed.

Citations added where needed. Only one citation per paragraph is necessary if the entire paragraph uses the same source.

Correct typo "Yer-2;" in variants. I would prefer a table with Variant, Production dates, Number produced and Notes as headings.

That's not normally how things are done with aircraft. Quite often the variants section is part of the main body of the text or is more textual in nature. See Messerschmitt Me 410 and Messerschmitt Me 163 for examples of usages.

Correct typo "Yer-2;" in variants.

Where? Yer-2 is the correct usage.

Is the semi-colon part of the name?

Avoid links to pages not yet created where possible.

Well, I wrote an article to get rid of a redlink, but otherwise that's not an issue when evaluating an article. See WP:MOS

Just a general comment.

Good wikilinking.

Any notes on their actual or likely operational performance? How did their performance stack up against the Me-109 or Focke-Wulf Fw 190? Maybe a short note on the shift from stategic to tactical (Il-2) bombing strategy.

None of my sources explicitly describe what you'd like to see. Readers will have to look at the specifications and draw their own conclusions. I added a bit regarding low-level missions.

Please improve the description on the image page.

What would you like to see?

The image "Jermolajew Jer-2 Riss.jpg" lacks a template.

Template for what? It's got a license tag.

Below is the correct information template for an image. "Jermolajew Jer-2 Riss.jpg" does not have this and it should. Dhatfield (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

File information

Description	Yermolayev Yer-2 twin-engined bomber
Source	http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/er2/er2-6.jpg
Date	01-01-2002
Author	Уголок неба
Permission (Reusing this file)	See below.

OK, I see what you mean, but I'm not the uploader. I don't have a clue where he scanned it from. Do you want me to delete it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting in the template and moving the description is a start. Dhatfield (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a conversion template that doesn't appear to be working. Dhatfield (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

DB-240, Yer-2/ACh-30B, Yer-2/AM-37, and Yer-2/M-40F → Yermolayev Yer-2

The content of these article can easily be explained in the context of the main article, and the main article is of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. These are all minor variants, none of which entered production. As an aside, all of these are incorrectly titled, as the Manufacturer's name is missing. - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

None of these are worthy of their own articles and should be merged into this article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If you view them not worthy just tag for deletion, all of the contents of the pages come from here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The content was COPIED from the Yer-2 article in the first place, so it isn't a merge (unless there is more content), just change to re-directs--Petebutt (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)!!

Some of them have their own infoboxes, and/or their own specs lists, so they do have some new content overall. - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Specs are essentially irrelevant as the policy is for specs for variants should be written into text (where different). Info boxes similarly are irrelevant as any info in them can be incorporated in the text / variant section.--Petebutt (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

My point is mainly dealing with attribution, in which the user added to the information he copied. He didn't simply copy text from the main article. We both agree that the split articles shouldn't exist, and that's the main point here. - BilCat (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

These should all be merged, as none are notable or that unique in and of themselves, and the small amount of added content will easily fit into the parent article. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)