Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich I-211

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich I-211/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

A couple of minor bits:

• "The I-211 was a direct descendent of the Mikoyan-Gurevich I-210" - could you get the words "fighter aircraft" in somewhere (e.g. after I-210) so that the casual reader can see what sort of aircraft it was? It's in the lead, but not in the main body.
• " a decision was made to phase out production of the Mikulin AM-35A engine in the MiG-1 and MiG-3 in favor of the Mikulin AM-38 engine used in the Ilyushin Il-2. The MiG design team had already created a version using a Shvetsov ASh-82 radial engine instead of the inline, liquid-cooled engine of the MiG-3. A number of changes were made in order to accommodate the larger circumference of the radial engine, but the redesign of the engine cowling was a failure and the I-210 proved to be slower than the Yak-1 or the LaGG-3 when it first flew on 23 July 1941.[1]"

I found this hard to follow, I'll admit. What was it a "version" of? My reading of this was that the MiG team were creating a version of the Il-2, using a Shvetsov ASh-82 radial engine instead of the inline, liquid-cooled engine of the MiG-3. But... I couldn't understand how that linked to the Mikulin AM-38, until I returned back to the lead and the explanation that the I-210 was linked to the MiG-3. How about something like:

• "The I-211 was a prototype, high-altitude fighter plane, directly descended from Mikoyan and Gurevich's I-210 prototype, a version of the MiG-3. Late in 1941, a decision had been made to phase out production of the Mikulin AM-35A engine in the MiG-1 and MiG-3 in favor of the Mikulin AM-38 engine used in the Ilyushin Il-2. The MiG design team created a version of the MiG-3 called the I-210 using a Shvetsov ASh-82 radial engine instead of the inline, liquid-cooled engine of the MiG-3. A number of changes were made in order to accommodate the larger circumference of the radial engine, but the redesign of the engine cowling was a failure and the I-210 proved to be slower than the Yak-1 or the LaGG-3 when it first flew on 23 July 1941."
  • See how it reads now.

• Read much better to me.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Mikoyan and Gurevich continued development..." You haven't introduced them yet. You could do that in the first sentence of the previous paragraph, e.g. "a direct descendent of Mikoyan and Gurevich's I-210 fighter aircraft", or something like that.
  • I linked to them directly.
• I'd recommend linking (or footnoting) cowling and wing roots
  • Done.
• "and a time to 5,000 m" - for the non-specialist reader, it might be worth explaining slightly more what this means.
  • How so, it seems pretty self-evident to me?

• It made sense to me, but then I read lots of books etc. when I was younger on planes climbing to altitude. I'd pass the article at GA anyway, but for some readers who don't immediately think in terms of gaining or losing height, saying something like "taking only 4.0 minutes to climb to 5,000 m" might read more naturally. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• "little demand for a high-altitude fighter" - this is the first time outside the lead you've implied that the I-211 is a high altitude fighter. Again, could be introduced in the first paragraph perhaps.
  • Done.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Clear.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• You've got a number of books in the bibliography, but only one is referenced. Would it be worth separating them out into "bibliography" and "further reading"?Hchc2009 (talk)
  • Done.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• Fine.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• No OR.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Addressed.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Focused.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Neutral.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• All tagged.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Relevant and captioned. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)