Talk:Polikarpov I-5/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Performed my usual minor copyedit but a few other things:
’Fraid my Russian is a bit below par - in The new fighter was designated I-5 (Istrebitel'—Fighter), can I just confirm that the inverted comma is correct?

I don’t think it looks right to use etc in a Good Article unless part of a quote – can we do better?

attrition had reduced them to sixteen serviceable and a dozen aircraft by 18 October – don’t quite understand this phrasing, do we mean sixteen serviceable and a dozen unserviceable?

eighteen serviceable and 15 serviceable I-5s – again I assume the 15 are unserviceable; also why eighteen and 15 – pls double-check standards/consistency throughout the article for words vs. digits as far as numbers go.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
You only cite a few of the references listed in the Bibliography. I believe the guideline is that only cited references should appear under Bibliogaphy, anything else comes under a Further Reading (sub)heading.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Might like to add alt text to the image.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
Overall looking very good, just placing on hold while you respond to the above points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I've addressed all of the issues you pointed out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it - I'm gathering the inverted comma in Istrebitel' is correct since you've used it more than once...! Passed, and well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot about the Istrebitel'; that is correct. At least as how Gordon transliterates the word, anyways. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]