Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3/GA1

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

Quick fail criteria assessment
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)

Good Article criteria
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.
 * Not required by WP:AVIMOS
 * The majority of aircraft articles have split each variant up into sections Ajpralston1 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The list works well when you can tag it to a difference in designation. That's not the case here, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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.
 * The list of specifications in the Development section, none of it is sourced. For all I know it could be made up! Ajpralston1 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done
 * Variant section needs to have the variants seperated rather than embedded within the text
 * Not required by WP:AVIMOS
 * More pictures IF possible
 * Remove red internal links
 * Redlinks are not a GA criterion. See WP:GACR--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Comment

 * 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)
 * Unknown, my source doesn't say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)