# Talk:Yakovlev Yak-140

Do we know specifically which MiG and Sukhoi aircraft were favored over this aircraft? Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

They're probably the Sukhoi T-3 and the Ye-4 prototype of the MiG-21, but my source doesn't specifically name them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article's last two paragraphs jump around quita a bit, time-wise.  The engine wasn't ready until 1956, and then proved to be too powerful (requiring a rebuild, from the looks of it), but the air ministry forbade testing in early 1956?--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, the engine was estimated not to be available until '56 so they went ahead and used an AM-9 instead, but MAP prevented it from actually flying in 55.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

More or less duplicate article with wrong name. Some content should be merged into this one and redirected. --Denniss (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
SupportOppose No, two entirely separate aircraft developed around the same time using different engines. Read a bit more carefully.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying there were two different aircraft types assigned the Yak-140 designation? Or that there is an actual company called Yakolev that also used the "Yak" prefix? - BilCat (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Support - Actually, they do appear to be the smae aircraft, both the AM-11 and AM-9 being mentioned in both articles. The other specs are quite close too. However, the editor who wrote Yakolev article has had trouble getting his facts right in other articles, so I wouldn't use any of his material before double-checking with his given source. - BilCat (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Look at the photos. Yak-1000 has T-tail, cockpit very close to the nose, no visible shock cone in the air intake and cropped delta wing planform. Yak-140 has mid-position tail, conventional swept wing, etc. God knows the Yak-140 article needs to be cleaned up, but it's a legitimate article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Um, I think you're confusing the two pages. This page is being proposed to be merged into from Yakolev Yak-140, a spelling error page. Yakovlev Yak-1000 and Yakolev Yak-1000 are an entierly seperate merge proposal. That said, Support. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
OOPs, I hadn't noticed the difference in spelling.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yakovlev Yak-140/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 23:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Article meets requirements; I made a few tweaks to the prose.
Gordon has multiple authors, so et al. should be used in footnotes.
Is there a citation for the aircraft in see also being "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era"? (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
No citations are needed for a see also section. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:V states, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Since this is in mainspace, there should be some way that I, a reader, is able to verify in a reliable source that these other aircraft are of a "comparable role, configuration and era". (t · c) buidhe 00:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that "comparable role, configuration and era" is a judgement call, one that authors generally don't bother with, so it's not citable. This has led to edit wars over which aircraft should be included as it's entirely subjective. I've deleted it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)