Talk:Alekseyev I-212/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 17:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good - passed at GA, nicely done, Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

A few tweaks needed:

"After working as Lavochkin's right-hand man during World War II, Alekseyev was appointed as Chief Designer of OKB-21 at Gor'kiy in 1946." I'd expand Alekseyev's name (as per the info box), and start the sentence with him. e.g. "Semyon Alekseyev was appointed... ...after working as Semyon Lavochkin's right-hand man..." - that way you'll start with the active part of the sentence.
"OKB" is never expanded or explained.
"(among others)" - you don't need the brackets here.
Worth linking cruciform tail.
"The aircraft was intended to use Klimov VK-1 engines, a derivative of the Rolls-Royce Nene, but these were still under development, so Nenes were substituted instead." - the "these" can get confused with the Nene's; I'd go for "but the Klimov engines were still under development", to avoid any confusion
"The information on the design's armament is contradictory. " - I'd break for a new paragraph before "The information...", allowing the reader to follow the difference in views more clearly.
You have the text going " Bill Gunston says..." and "Yefim Gordon claims..." - is this deliberate? (It suggests that Gunston is more accurate than Gordon). If they're both equally valid, I'd go for "Yefim Gordon argues...", which would be more neutral.
"They also differ on the fate of the aircraft. " - Worth spelling it out: "Gunston and Gordon also differ..."
- Good suggestions all.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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;

One citation ends the publisher in a full-stop, the other with a comma - either's fine, but you'll need to be consistent. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.

(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;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

Clear. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

The one bit that seemed lacking was the ending - why wasn't the variant proceeded with? (it was clearly cancelled before or after the prototype was developed, but its not clear why from the article). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear in the sources.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]