Talk:Polikarpov I-5/GA1

GA Review
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 follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):


 * 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)