Talk:Lavochkin La-152/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 03:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "name - Type" replace hyphen with dash
 * Sure.
 * Replace "U.S.S.R." with "Soviet Union" no links
 * Sure
 * Are there any reason why "4" shouldn't be spelled out in full?
 * MOS for infoboxes is to use the digits in all cases.
 * "Lavochkin Design Bureau (OKB)" --> "Lavochkin Design Bureau (OKB)"
 * Please spell "150", "152", as "La-150"
 * Using 150 etc. is my attempt to bypass nomenclature issues dealing with the bullshit La-X or the proper Izdeliye name as used by the OKB. I've reluctantly used La-152 in the lede and in references to other articles, but won't use it again.
 * Does this use Am Eng? If yes, cancelled should be canceled.
 * Fixed
 * "In the meantime" --> "Meanwhile"
 * Good idea.
 * "versions of the RD-10 in an effort to increase the engine's power."
 * Done.
 * "340 kilograms-force kgf" please standardise throughout article
 * This is an issue with the template which is set up only for kN. Do you want me to manually convert them all to kN?
 * Yes, kN seems to be used for widely. Sp33dyphil © • © 05:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Aircraft 156" shouldn't it be "La-156"
 * No, it shouldn't.
 * Link "ejection seat" and "Soviet Air Forces"
 * Done.
 * I suggest link "Tushino flypast as "Tushino flypast"
 * Tushino is a place so I think it's worth keeping the link.
 * Please re-link "Rolls-Royce Derwent V" as "Rolls-Royce Derwent V", or have I missed something?
 * I don't know why this matters, but whatever. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please add caption of the first pic. Please add alt text.
 * Caption added, alt text not required.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't, I will. I'll spend a few minutes so some vision-impaired people can at least get an idea of what they're supposed to be looking at. Sp33dyphil © • © 06:41, 12 October 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: