Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Harrison49 in topic GA Review
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.png)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
| Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-1 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Old talk
editMore effort needs to be put into completing the infobox. Askari Mark | Talk 18:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
editArticle reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Untitled section
editSomeone please type in how much ammunition it could carry for its guns! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.232.231 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A very interesting article. It does however need some tweaks before it can be passed.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- The quality of prose is good.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- The lead section is too short. It needs to be expanded to become a general summary of the article. The Commons category should be moved to the External links section.
- Lead expanded, see how it works now. Commonscat moved.
- The lead is still shorter than I would like but since there is a limited history to the aircraft, I'll tick this off.
- The lead section is too short. It needs to be expanded to become a general summary of the article. The Commons category should be moved to the External links section.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- The specification details need a reference, cited at the top of the list.
- Done.
- The specification details need a reference, cited at the top of the list.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Citations are well-placed.
- C. No original research:
- There does not appear to be any original research.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- The article is detailed and focused.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- The article is written from a neutral point of view.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- The article does not appear to be subject to any edit wars.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- The sole image is used under public domain rules and is available on Commons.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
On hold until the improvements suggested are made. Harrison49 (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)- Passed. A very interesting read, and now a Good Article too. Good work. Harrison49 (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)