Talk:Tupolev Tu-70

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tupolev Tu-70 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tupolev Tu-70 has been listed as one of the Warfare 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
February 15, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 20, 2009.

Aviation: Aircraft / Soviet

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the Soviet aviation task force.

Flyover errors

According to Parade the source in the Tu-4 article, there were FOUR Tu-4s, not 3, at the flyover, and it gives the date as 2 August 1947. - BillCJ (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specs

The figures in Nemecek are different to those in the article, Span 43.05m Length 35.61m, wing area 161.7m2, Take-off weight 51,400kg, max speed 563kph, ceiling 10,200m, ange 4,900. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tupolev Tu-70/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
prose: (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. link for reverse-engineered

Done.

2. You forgot to add the height in the Spec's section

No height given in any source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Strum. Passed. Thurgate (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]