Talk:Antonov An-70/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Extremely sorry for the delay. Will complete this soon. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;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)
 * - have you lost track of this review? Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, and thanks for reminding. Take my word, this review will be done within three days. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;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 &bull;&#32;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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Sorry for the delay. G'work.Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Sorry for the delay. G'work.Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. G'work.Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)