Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich DIS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Mikoyan-Gurevich DIS has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 1, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know


Untitled[edit]

The initial version of this article was based on a material from aviation.ru. It has been released under the GFDL by the copyright holder.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: The Bushranger (talk · contribs) 01:28, 1 December 2011 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    A few grammar smoothings are required - for instance, "with service designation MiG-5 was reserved" is rather awkward. The Russian words defining OKO should be italicised, for two examples. Also, the "design and development" section should be subdivided, I believe - the flight testing should be in a seperate section/subsection.
    All done, I believe.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References are accurate and reliable, without OR. While technically meeting the requirement I think the long paragraphs shouldn't be cited just at the end - it's an invitation for later additions to "pretend" to be referenced.
    My articles may be hijacked later on, but I'll take that risk.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    Fair enough.
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Placing this on hold while the above comments are addressed. The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    Good to go. Nice work. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)