Talk:PowerJet SaM146

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Russia: Technology & engineering / Economy Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.

Article not objective or written in a professional manner.

"CFM56 - the world’s most reliable and economical jet." - a statement like this needs support. If the CFM56 is so economical and reliable why does anyone buy Airbus 320's with IAE V2500 engines? Why should the IAE V2500 have a 56% market share on A320's in the last ten years when a) it is not available on the A318 and b) Air France, a major A320 customer, has no choice in its engine selection? Why do RR, GE and P&W bother with newer designs?

I tried to do a clean-up on it.[edit]

This was actually worse than an ad - it read like a press release. And a pretty crappy one.

bwob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwob (talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did a passable job of fixing this.[edit]

I did what I thought was a reasonable clean-up job on this, but the big "This article or section is written like an advertisement" warning and orange exclamation mark is still there. Didn't I slice and dice it enough? Bwob 09:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duh-uh, I figured it out[edit]

I didn't realise I could remove the 'advert' warning. Thought somebody in WikipediaCentral had to do it. I'm awake...

Bwob 09:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still reads like an advert[edit]

I like some of the info here, but it needs to be kept neutral and cited. 109.148.211.209 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

SaM146 back.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]