Talk:Antonov An-70

Merger proposal

I propose that 2001 Antonov An-70 Crash be merged with Antonov An-70.--Petebutt (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Don't merge - Since no reasons for merger were given, here are all reasons the article should be allowed to stand alone IMHO. The aircraft is one of two ever built, and initially was determined to be a total loss. In order to save the 5 billion dollar AN-70 project it was decided to return prototype 2 to flying status with GREAT effort and cost. This was a high-profile project at the time with much infighting among the program participants This article is about the 2nd prototype's crash, there is a separate article about crash of the first one 6 years earlier 1995 Antonov An-70 prototype crash. Both have interesting information. Finally the 2001 Antonov An-70 Crash is too large and unwieldy to be merged into the Antonov An-70 article. Samf4u 16:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Antonov bankruptcy

Some discussion is needed on the topic of Antonov's bankruptcy, especially as documented by reliable sources. Antonov has been merged into Ukraine's UKROBORONPROM State Concern and production of all aircraft by Antonov, including the disaster-prone An-70, has ended. 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)

No discussion is needed in an individual aircraft article, take it to the company article. As Bill indicated in his edit summaries, it's not as clear as you make it sound. Certainly not worth adding to every single Antonov aircraft article. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't matter to me where it's discussed as long as it's not buried. I just sprinkled it around a bit because someone was determined to stifle discussion and was deleting any mention of it, denying that sources were reliable, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's so clear, rather I said "discussion is still needed to ensure that the information is properly documented". Santamoly (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Foreign Language Sources

If someone proficient in the languages could translate the titles of the foreign language sources (Russian and German) that would be good. Scotteaton92 (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antonov An-70. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130205161729/http://www.demotix.com:80/news/1689319/ukraine-completes-fuselage-jig-assembly-aircraft-70 to http://www.demotix.com/news/1689319/ukraine-completes-fuselage-jig-assembly-aircraft-70#media-1689298

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Checked source Scotteaton92 (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Not well written, confusing

This article has issues. The narrative jumps around and presents events out of sequence, and isn't consistent. For example, it is stated that the project is dead, but later production is going to resume. I don't have sufficient knowledge or experience to rewrite it, but can it be flagged as needing improvement?Marzolian (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Russian or not ?

I thought Antonov is based in Ukraine. --Io Herodotus (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It is but when the An-70 was designed it was part of the Soviet Union. MilborneOne (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The category "Russian military transport aircraft 2000–2009" is probably inappropriate however, as i) we categorise by first flight date, and ii) Antonov was definitely not Russian.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You are correct I missed that, I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sp33dyphil: Extremely sorry for the delay. Will complete this soon. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You're alright. I was just waiting for the article to settle anyway after having added more content. Thank you for taking this on. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: - have you lost track of this review? Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy and Sp33dyphil: Sorry for the delay, and thanks for reminding. Take my word, this review will be done within three days. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I was looking at clearing out some of the older reviews at GAN, and saw you might need a reminder here :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

---

• Lead and infobox; all good
• Section 1;
  • Link An-12 twin-engine turboprop aircraft
    • Done. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Link Soviet Armed Forces
    • Done. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • DASA depended on data provided by Antonov and was not able to test-fly the aircraft themselves; what is the reason?
    • I couldn't find the reason for this, so it's been reworded. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • repaired it in record time; how much?
    • Removed claim. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Section 2, 3, 4, 5; All good. A very well written article, just a few corrections.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Sorry for the delay. G'work.Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Hello. Does anybody have a photo that shows the aircraft in-flight and facing left towards the text? There's File:Antonov An-70, Antonov Design Bureau AN2232181.jpg but it doesn't seem very clear. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)