Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 00:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• please add alt text.]
  • No longer a requirement at any level.
• "610 aircraft were built, including prototypes and they entered service in 1948 with the Soviet Air Forces." Please reword so the number is not at the start.
  • Done.
• "defend Chinese cities" from what?
  • Added.
• link "MiG-15" at first mention.
  • It was already, last line of the first paragraph of the lede.
• "the Council of People's Commissars ordered that the Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau (OKB) to"
  • Good catch.
• "Intended as a bomber destroyer interceptor" it's your call.
  • Interceptors don't necessarily have a heavy cannon armament, just, usually, short range and high rate of climb.
• "Three prototypes should be ready were scheduled for flight tests by 15 March 1946."]
  • Not sure I agree with this. The Council ordered that three aircraft be ready, just like it ordered that the aircraft meet various performance goals. That's not quite the same thing as scheduled, IMO. It's a subtle distinction, I know. What are your thoughts?
• "izdeliye F" italicise; please check throughout article.
  • Done.
• link "first flight"
• Done.
• "at Ramenskoye (also known as Zhukovsky) to begin"
  • I can't tell whether borders shifted or the LII moved, but both towns exist independently. Maybe the LII is in Zhukovsky while the airfield is in Ramenskoye, but I'm going to stick to my source.
• "although it which only lasted six minutes"
• Done.
• "In the meantime, Meanwhile the horizontal stabilizer"
• Done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

♠"That's not quite the same thing as scheduled". I'd say stick to something like "instructed be ready". In a Red AF context, this was akin to a command performance, & the penalty for missing a deadline could be fairly serious. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think Trekphiler is correct. I'd change the original wording, but prefer Trek's wording. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Rephrased.

It may be worth mentioning the other designs produced as a result of the Feb 45 meeting (i.e. the Yak-15, Su-9 and La-150). In particular, it may be worth stating that the Yak-15 first flew on the same day as the MiG, and that the MiG alledgedly flew foirst as a result of a coin toss (according to Gunston). Otherwise, after a quick scan it seems OK.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I added the bit about the coin toss; I just wish that it was confirmed by Gordon. Thanks for looking in on this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:57, 29 September 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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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: