Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich DIS/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Bushranger (talk · contribs) 01:28, 1 December 2011 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A few grammar smoothings are required - for instance, "with service designation MiG-5 was reserved" is rather awkward. The Russian words defining OKO should be italicised, for two examples. Also, the "design and development" section should be subdivided, I believe - the flight testing should be in a seperate section/subsection.

   All done, I believe.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References are accurate and reliable, without OR. While technically meeting the requirement I think the long paragraphs shouldn't be cited just at the end - it's an invitation for later additions to "pretend" to be referenced.

   My articles may be hijacked later on, but I'll take that risk.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

   Fair enough.

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Placing this on hold while the above comments are addressed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

   Good to go. Nice work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)