| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antonov An-148 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Antonov bankruptcy
editSome discussion is needed on the topic of Antonov's bankruptcy, especially as documented by various reliable sources. Antonov has been merged into Ukraine's UKROBORONPROM State Concern and production of all aircraft by Antonov, including the An-148, has ended in Ukraine. Russia's Ilyushin (VORONEZH Aircraft Production Association), which produced 70% of the 148 before Antonov's bankruptcy, has taken over production of the An-148 and has been the de facto sole-source of the 148 for the last 2 years. As can be expected, there will be hot feelings over this topic, and even some denial, but discussion is still needed to ensure that the information is properly documented. Santamoly (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Main image
edit@Marc Lacoste: well looks like it wasn't discussed here, so maybe that IP should be reverted too. FOX 52 talk! 16:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- It has stood the test of time. Just show both pictures and explain why you think it should be changed. Thanks Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Seems to be a no brainer, not sure how a nose shot (image 1) can encompass the overall view of the aircraft? The main image should give the reader an easy well-defined visualization of the subject matter - Image 2 or something similar to that one definitely is a better fit - 20:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
-
image 1 -
image 2
_RP29608.jpg)
.jpg)
- Both pictures shows adequately the main parts of the aircraft and their relative position: the aircraft configuration is well conveyed by both. Between the two, the first picture gets my preference as it's in clean config (gear up) and the picture is more dynamic.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- the first one does not adequately show the overall length accurately - The main image should give the reader an easy well-defined visualization of the subject matter, image 1 doesn't give that - FOX 52 talk! 17:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Both pictures shows adequately the main parts of the aircraft and their relative position: the aircraft configuration is well conveyed by both. Between the two, the first picture gets my preference as it's in clean config (gear up) and the picture is more dynamic.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
A photo can't show a length with any accuracy. A photo is a perspective, a 2d representation of a 3d object. It can only show the relative position of an object parts. Neither pic 1 nor pic 2 Can show a length accurately. Both are correct depictions of the subject. A choice can be made on other parameters. Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Image 2 looks best for infobox. Peter Ormond 💬 16:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your participation, but I'm afraid it's not acceptable as it was caused by Wikipedia:Canvassing.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Marc Lacoste: Canvassing is acceptable when trying to open up the discussion. I asked one editor "for a different perspective" which is neutral, & appropriate - FOX 52 talk! 00:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @FOX 52: not when one may be WP:cherry picked. It is appropriate to open the discussion to the WikiProject for example, see WP:APPNOTE.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)