Talk:Antonov An-70/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sp33dyphil: Extremely sorry for the delay. Will complete this soon. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You're alright. I was just waiting for the article to settle anyway after having added more content. Thank you for taking this on. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: - have you lost track of this review? Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy and Sp33dyphil: Sorry for the delay, and thanks for reminding. Take my word, this review will be done within three days. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I was looking at clearing out some of the older reviews at GAN, and saw you might need a reminder here :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

---

• Lead and infobox; all good
• Section 1;
  • Link An-12 twin-engine turboprop aircraft
    • Done. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Link Soviet Armed Forces
    • Done. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • DASA depended on data provided by Antonov and was not able to test-fly the aircraft themselves; what is the reason?
    • I couldn't find the reason for this, so it's been reworded. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • repaired it in record time; how much?
    • Removed claim. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Section 2, 3, 4, 5; All good. A very well written article, just a few corrections.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Sorry for the delay. G'work.Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)