Talk:Lavochkin La-150/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 08:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: one dab link :
 * Gorky ✅
 * It's correct. Sorry about that, I forgot about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Linkrot: External links all check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google searches reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose looks good and I see no major MOS issues.
 * Not sure what you mean here though: "Given the need for speed...", do you mean "Given the need to accelerate development..."? Perhaps reword?
 * Done.
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS
 * No issues with WP:OR as far as I can see.
 * One issue though is that only two major works listed in the bibliography, so I'm not sure if it represents the bulk of the available literature on the topic. I wonder if there is anything else available? For instance Google Books brings up a few possible titles such as:
 * Russian aviation and air power in the twentieth century
 * The complete book of fighters: an illustrated encyclopedia of every fighter aircraft built and flown
 * More listed here
 * Do any of these add anything of use?
 * No, mainly because everything written before the end of the Cold War, or based on material that was like the books you cited, is suspect. Even Gunston is somewhat questionable, but he gives a better physical description than Gordon usually does and remains useful.
 * Happy with that then. Anotherclown (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Given the limited production of the aircraft I think this article does a good job in covering most major points.
 * I wonder if you could add a bit more context though? In particularly you might mention that it was designed during the closing year of the Second World War and briefly discuss the German and Allied developments in jet/aircraft design that were occurring (i.e. the first jet fighters began appearing etc).
 * Added a bit to the lede about all that.
 * "The Lavochkin OKB was ordered to design a fighter using a single Junkers Jumo 004B axial-flow turbojet in February 1945." Do the sources mention how it was that a German engine was available? (I assume they had been captured during the course of the war).
 * I was puzzled by that as well. I presume that they already had captured examples on hand, although I'm not sure how they were acquired. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Too easy. Anotherclown (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues with POV.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
 * Images are all either PD or appropriately licenced.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, quite a tidy well-written article which seems to meet most if not all of the GA criteria. Just a couple of minor points and a few queries above to deal with/discuss though. Anotherclown (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy with those changes, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)