# Talk:Tupolev MTB-2

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tupolev MTB-2/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Starting review.

"Two prototypes were built..."  Maybe simplify as, "Two prototypes were built; they had satisfactory performance but the design was overtaken by long-range land-based bombers and the project was cancelled in 1940."
"The sole surviving aircraft" begin a new paragraph here.
"it flew bombing against targets in Germany's ally", clarify what "it" refers to.  Do you mean the type in general, or specifically the single aircraft noted in the previous sentence?  And likewise with "it" in the next sentence.  Also, I think you meant, "it flew bombing missions".
"were obsolescent and needed to be replaced", that's redundant.  Just saying they were obsolescent is enough.
"The requirements for the ANT-44...".  This paragraph is confusing.  How much of what's described here was specified in the requirements, and how much describes the airplane as built?
"capable of a speed of 300 km/h", delete "of a speed".
Ah, I now see what "the sole surviving aircraft" means.  It's still confusing as used in the lead section.  Maybe you should say something like, "Two prototypes were built, one of which was destroyed during testing" in the lead to avoid this confusion.
"armed with 7.62 mm (0.300 in)" I don't know how to make {{convert}} do it, but that's conventionally written as ".30 caliber".
This is from a quick read, which is all I've got time for right now.  I'll come back and do another pass.
I just noticed this is the 2nd review.  Looking over the first one, I agree with a bunch of the points left unresolved from that review:

As I noted above, the whole "requirements" paragraph is confusing.  The "35-40 people and cargo" is certainly something that needs to get fixed.
Tweaked the wording. "35-40 people and cargo" is from the source
The "Operators" section should be deleted entirely.
"As Axis troops advanced along the Black Sea coast" needs to be clarified.
How so? Battle of the Sea of Azov is too specific.
"world records for aircraft of its type and size" needs to be clarified.  These things are usually something like "seaplane greater than xxx kg gross weight".
Not given in sources.
Back to my own reading:

"Many of the terms in the specifications should be wikilinked.  I haven't checked these, but I'd suspect "radial piston engine" and "variable-pitch propeller" have useful articles about them.  I'd also link the full phrase "ShVAK autocannon", not just "ShVAK".  Likewise for "ShKAS machine gun".


### On Hold
@Sturmvogel 66: you have not responded to this review.  If you do not do so by April 16, I will have to mark this review as failed.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66, OK, this looks reasonable.  I'll note some remaining issues here:

I'd still like to see some of the ambiguities explained.  In the specific cases noted above (how much cargo in addition to 35-40 people, and what are the "type and size" for the records it set), if that information is not available, state that in the text.  Something like, "...could also transport 35–40 people and cargo (available sources do not specify details)", and similar wording for the world records.  Then at least it's clear why this information, which would appear to be quite basic, is not given.

For radial engines, only link it the first time it appears in the article.  You also don't want to have two blue links directly adjacent to each other, per WP:SEAOFBLUE, which you do with  air-cooled radial engines in the Specifications section.  Fortunately, unlinking the second instance solves both problems.

Other than that, this looks good.   An interesting article about a rare and unusual aircraft.   I'm  not going to hold up the GA, but please go back and fix these on your own.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)