Talk:Lavochkin La-7/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk • contribs • count) 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Some refs have parentheses for the years, some don't - this should be standardized.
- Done.
- What makes ipilot.ru and designation-systems.net reliable? Are Parsch and Martynov established experts? (Jane's calls Parsch an expert here, so I'm inclined to accept the website on that basis, though it seems his work is largely unpublished apart from the website).
- ipilot.ru reprints the Statistical Digest of the VVS, a primary source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Some refs have parentheses for the years, some don't - this should be standardized.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Images check out.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I'd like the lead to be a little longer - maybe add some of the basic development info (development period, first flight, maybe reference the designer by name rather than the bold-ed link—which I'm not sure is correct according to the MoS, btw., etc.). I know you don't like technical information in the lead, but some basic things like speed and armament might be a good idea. This isn't that big of an issue, however. Good work overall. Parsecboy (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Added a little more to the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like the lead to be a little longer - maybe add some of the basic development info (development period, first flight, maybe reference the designer by name rather than the bold-ed link—which I'm not sure is correct according to the MoS, btw., etc.). I know you don't like technical information in the lead, but some basic things like speed and armament might be a good idea. This isn't that big of an issue, however. Good work overall. Parsecboy (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
