Talk:Heinkel He 111

Heinkel He 111 has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 6, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Military history: World War II GA‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	World War II task force

Aviation: Aircraft GA‑class

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Template:Maintained

split off CASA 2.111?

The CASA models were produced with different engines and in almost completely non-overlapping runs. Is there any reason they shouldn't be stubbed off to a new page? It would, if nothing else, simplify the service dates for the He 111 and allow full specs for the Merlin-engined 2.111. ericg ✈ 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created this page as a stub with basic specifications. Your assistance is appreciated! ericg ✈ 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phased out in 1942?

"He 111 was phased out of front line service in 1942, but remained in production until 1944" Why would it have been keep in production then? The He 111 served into 1945 in the path-finder, agent dropping, and transport role.--Bryson 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, changed it to a somewhat better solution from in the July 2004 article version. --Denniss 10:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Media/ Games section

OK, what is the standard for subjects in media? I see a lot of other pages with this, and it serves a valid puroose for curious/interested persons to see real and simulated examples (not just 2d photos) As to games, it is a very valid inclusion as well. My opinion their needs to be a section, but listing brief, and only when image is more then a few (10 seconds?) seconds, and in games if you can at least partially control them, not simply as AI targets. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange: You re-added the pop-culture junk BEFORE you know what the standards are? For the basic guideline we follow on aircraft articles regarinign pop-culture, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Popular culture. The key phrase there is "especially notable", and I don't believe anything on the list falls into that category. Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and other related guidelines, the fact that some article may have sub-standard sectons or content is no reason to justify it's use on other pages. If you'd like to present your new standard, pleease do so at WT:AIR, and gain a consensus for it there, then you can apply it to article like this one. - BillCJ (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went on the assumption that it should have been listed. I am reading over the links now (First time I saw them). --Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crew numbers

It current lists: Crew: 5 (pilot, navigator/bombardier, nose gunner, ventral gunner, dorsal gunner)

We all know that the navigator/bombardier and nose gunner is the same person. Also, the number is 4. It could carry 5, but crew was mainly 4. Goes to proves that even Janes can be wrong. I will change in a couple of days. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operational History

....section has just undergone creation. Expansion tags have been added until it can be fleshed out. Dapi89 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational aids

I recall the Knickebein blind bombing/navigational system was present on all or most He 111s, as opposed to the the X and Y devices which were only used by special Pathfinder units like KG 100. I can't seem to find the reference though, but the part where it says that a 'select few' Heinkels were fitted with the Knickebein seems erroneous. Kurfürst (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not erroneous, definitely not "most". Only three Gruppen used this; II./KG 55, III./KG 26 and KG 100 (Mackay p. 89). Now III./KG 26 never had more than 26 machines in total during the BoB. II./KG 55 had not more than 28 (de Zeng Vol 1), and KG 100 had only two gruppen during the BoB, Stab.KG 100 and IV.(Erg)/KG 100. Their totals never exceeded 19 and 18 respectively. I.V(Erg) had 24 machines but 6 or 7 for training crews (de Zeng Vol 2). Thats about 70 aircraft - most definitley not in the majority but in the minority. Dapi89 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, given Mackay does not use "select few" I will remove it and convey its significance rather than its wide spread usage. Dapi89 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the above also constitutes OR I think. Dapi89 (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He 111Z

It claims a total fuel capacity of 8.25 l (2 US gal). Is this correct as with the stated range of 680 miles you're looking at a 340mpg value! ABurness (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the problem: decimal point confusion. The earlier text states Total fuel capacity was 8.250 litres, but was changed to what we have now per this diff. Warning, LOTS of edits in that diff!) Being a German plane, a lot of editors and or source material use decimal commas and thousands-points. Apparently this should be "8,250 litres". I'm going to change it to that, but add a {{verify source}} tag to make sure the figure is correct. Thanks for spotting that! - BillCJ (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I have added the citation. The confusion = edit made by another editor in the link above. Dapi89 (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THe confusion stems from the use of decimal-thousands, or perhaps it was just a typo. Whatever the cause, we all need to be more careful. Also, removing the conversions to gallons (US or Imp) is a not good idea. Per MOS:CONVERSIONS: "Conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should generally be provided." If you prefer Imperail gallons, then nmake the conversions. Until then, we should leave in the US gallons conversions. - BillCJ (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible quote

In the 111 Z section, it says, "The variant did not display 'any convicing performance'". Even if it's a typo and should say "convincing", I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and elaborated on. Dapi89 (talk)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heinkel He 111/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. It is Well-written

(a) The article is well written and flows well, there are no sections which don't make sense. There are only a few spelling mistakes.

(b) It complies with the manual of style

2. It is Factually accurate and verifiable

(a) References are properly layed out and all sources of information are referenced

(b) All quotations and stats are referenced from sources which appear reliable due to wide use of them. However the popular culture section is missing a reference and needs atleast one as this is information which could be challenged See Good article criteria

(c) No original research

3. It is very Broad in its coverage

(a) It contains a lot of relevant information and addresses all aspects of the topic, it is very well detailed

(b) It doesn't stray from the focused topic and all information is relevant to the Heinkel He 111

4. Written in a Neutral POV

(a) The article is written in a neutral and doesn't show biased opinions

5. It is Stable with no ongoing edit wars

(a) This page does not change significantly on a daily basis and remains stable. There are also no ongoing edit wars is the history section or on the talk page

6. It is Illustrated by images if possible

(a) The images are all tagged correctly with their copyright status

(b) The images are very relevant to the page and the captions are good with more detail given once clicking on the picture

Overall this article is very good. It is very detailed and a lot of work has clearly gone into it. The article contains well referenced quotes, statistics and lists such as list of operators. There are only a few minor problems however none of which are significant enough to stopping this from becoming a good article. For improvements, the popular culture section needs atleast one reference to be sure it isn't challenged. There are plenty of images which are all tagged correctly with their copyright status and are all relevant. This article without a shadow of a doubt makes the Good article criteria and I believe it could even go as far as featured article.

Ajpralston1 (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tag

This is indeed a request that assertions in the lede, unsourced and not clearly born out by the subsequent text, be supported or removed. Please do not remove such tags without acknowledging such requests. Thanks.Redheylin (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an assertion. In case you had not noticed, it is sourced. Perhaps a proper read of the article lead, and the development of the He 111 is required. Dapi89 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]