Jump to content

Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Quick fail criteria assessment[edit]

1. Verifiability

(a) lacks reliable sources
(b) improperly cited references

2. NPOV

(a) not biases to one side

3. Cleanup banners/tags

(a) no cleanup banners
(b) no {citation needed} links
(c) no similar tags to the above

4. Stability

(a) no ongoing edit wars
(b) no massive changes which alter important content

5. Current Event

(a) doesn't describe a current, ongoing events

Passed the quick-fail. Looking good so far! Ajpralston1 (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article criteria[edit]

1. It is Well-written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct.
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

The variants need be shown separately rather than in a continuous passage.

2. It is 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.
(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.
(c) it contains no original research.

3. It is very Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

4. Written in a Neutral POV

(a) it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. It is Stable with no ongoing edit wars

(a) it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. It is Illustrated by images if possible

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

There are a few small issues with this article which if resolved will cause it to become good article. The issues are;

  • Prototype differences needs some sources/citations
    • There weren't any differences between the single prototype and the early production aircraft as far as I can tell.
  • Variant section needs to have the variants seperated rather than embedded within the text
  • More pictures IF possible
  • Remove red internal links

I believe that this article then meets the good article criteria and thus it reaches good article status. Nice one. Ajpralston1 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

  • This is a personal complaint, but I don't like the list discussing changes in the prototypes. It would be better if it was written out.
    • I don't agree.
  • What about the performance of the first to third prototypes? Handling etc? Citations? I don't see any attached to the list.
    • There was only the one prototype, the fourth I-200. I have no information on how it performed in comparison to any production MiG-3.
  • I think the variants section should be a list rather than blurb
    • I'll think about this, but I'm not inclined to put this into list format as I don't see any advantages to doing so.
  • What was the difference between the PBP-1A and PBP-1 gunsights? Dapi89 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-3/GA1&oldid=321765551"