Talk:IAMI Shafaq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article has been marked as needing immediate attention! Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 FACTS 2 Unit Cost 3 Article name 4 Improvements 5 Comparable Aircraft? 6 question

[edit] FACTS

This article sites no sources... Technajunky 23:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

is this a 4th or 4.5th generation fighter? To what aircraft is it comparable?...(Jschager 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Unit Cost

The "Unit Cost" is listed as "112.000,000US$". This is a strange formatting; in the US the $ sign is put before the numerical amount. It should be formatted as either "$112.000,000 US" or "112.000,000 USD". The other strangeness is the mix of "." and "," in the number. American English and other English dialects have different conventions on this. If we are using US dollars, then the American English conventions would make more sense. In either case, it is not clear what the value is supposed to be. If it should be "112000 + 000/1000" (fractions to avoid ambiguity) then it should be written with only two zeros after the decimal point. However, 112 thousand sounds pretty cheap for a fighter plane, I would guess that the mix of "," and "." is simply carelessness, and the thing really costs 112 million. In this case the number should be written "$112,000,000.00 US" or "112,000,000.00 USD". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.245.55 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Article name

I have noticed that in July 2006, somone moved the article from IAMI Shafaq to just plain Shafaq, with the comment "No reason to mention company name infront of every aircraft". Well, actually, there is a reason: WP:AIR naming conventions require either a manufacturer and name, or designation and name for every aircraft article.

I have moved the page back to the original name. If the company name or initials used for the company are wrong, then feel free to move it to the correct company name. - BillCJ 20:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements

I renamed the Introduction section, Development. I tried to clean up some wording in there too. It seems like info is repeated in there. If you can help with this article, please do. -Fnlayson 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparable Aircraft?

Not to discredit Iranian engineering, but based on it's apparent size, wouldn't this aircraft be more comparable to recent trainer designs such as the Yak-130 and Mikoyan MiG-AT rather than the likes of Eurofighter or F-22? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gooberliberation (talk • contribs).

• The Shafaq is described as being sub-sonic. Given that, I don't see how it can be comparable to fighters like the F-22. -Fnlayson 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

-It's said to be stealthy, but still, the point remains, I too don't think it's comparable to the f-22 or typhoon

[edit] question

First, there is no such a thing today : "an aircrafe that was developed by a women" not because she is "she" and not "he" , but because of the fact that a development of any jet plane is so complicated and need experties from countless knowledge areas that this is just not possible that one person would be able to do such a thing on its own.

• Changed to The development team was headed by a female Iranian engineer. Does that suffice? I placed a {{fact}} tag on that statement in Feb, and there is still not a souce. There is the screen cap pic of a woman in front of the plane that is supposed to be the engineer in question, so I haven't removed it. If you don't feel this is a sufficient reason to leave the statement, or if you sincerely doubt the statemnet is true at all, feel free to remove the statement. THe burden of proof in such cases in on the one adding the text to verify the claim. - BillCJ 17:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Secondly , I dont belive that this plane acctually could fly .

• If you have a verifiable, credible source to that point, feel free to add and cite it. - BillCJ 17:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thirdly , Iran claimed many times before that it develop many different kinds of weapons on its ows while in fact there is not even one Iranian product that could be considerd as "original" , its allways heavily based on Russian , Chinese or other state knowledge.--Gilisa 16:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• So?