Talk:Tupolev Tu-12

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tupolev Tu-12/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CrowzRSA 01:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 Doin...

Not so much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Before I pass the article, I was wondering if there is any missing information, because there is only one article with prose. CrowzRSA 02:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. What do you mean only one article with prose?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I meant section. I mean, most articles have at least two. CrowzRSA 21:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I added a subsection.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
        • It does look a little better, but should the section be renamed History, and the section below it be made into a subsection named Development. Like this:

History

Development

Testing and evaluation

• • • • • CrowzRSA 01:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Seems rather elaborate for a five-paragraph article. And the testing is usually part of the development process.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Okay. CrowzRSA 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Result

GA review (see here for criteria)

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:

   CrowzRSA 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)