Talk:Polikarpov I-5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articlePolikarpov I-5 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.
January 9, 2010Good article nomineeListed


Dont know how feasible it would be but a picture would be a great addition! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

One has obviously been found since this post...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polikarpov I-5/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

  • 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 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)

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

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)
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)