Talk:Sukhoi Su-9 (1946)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 23:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
• Disambiguations: one dab link [3]:
  • Dihedral
• Linkrot: External links check out [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: image lacks alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google searches reveal no issues [6] (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• The lead is a little repetitive in the overuse of the word "it" IMO. Also it seems to be missing some linking words. Consider something like this:
  • "The Sukhoi Su-9, or Samolyet K (Russian: Aircraft K), (USAF/DOD designation: Type 8), was an early jet fighter built in the Soviet Union shortly after World War II. Its design began in 1944 and was originally intended to use Soviet-designed turbojet engines. The design was heavily influenced by captured German jet fighters and it was subsequently redesigned to use a Soviet copy of a German turbojet. The Su-9 was slower than competing Soviet aircraft and it was cancelled as a result. A modified version with different engines and a revised wing became the Su-11 (Samolyet KL), but this did not enter production either. The Su-13 (Samolyet KT) was a proposal to re-engine the aircraft with Soviet copies of the Rolls-Royce Derwent turbojet as well as to modify it for night fighting, but neither proposal was accepted."
• This is also a little repetitive: "The test pilots found the aircraft easy to fly, but the control forces were very high at high speed and it lacked enough directional stability." Specifically "very high at high speed". Perhaps consider "The test pilots found the aircraft easy to fly, but the control forces were very high at speed and it lacked enough directional stability.
• This doesn't seem quite right gramatically to me: "The armament was changed to three 37 mm Nudelman N-37 cannon and drop tanks could be fitted underneath the wingtips." Perhaps consider something like: "The armament was changed to three 37 mm Nudelman N-37 cannon, while drop tanks could be fitted underneath the wingtips."
• Also repetitive: "A night fighter version with a Torii radar in the radar was also proposed...", perhaps consider wording more simply as "A night fighter version with a Torii radar was also proposed..."
• No MOS issues that I could see.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• All major points are refenced to reliable sources.
• Cittions use a consistent style.
• No issues with OR that I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Given the very small numbers produced all major points seem to be covered.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • Looks fine IMO.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

• No issues. Image used is PD and is appropriate for article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Overall this article looks quite good to me, just a couple of relatively minor prose issues to fix first. Happy to discuss or reconsider comments you don't agree with. Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • All done; thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Looks good, passing now. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)