Talk:Polikarpov I-5

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Aviation: Aircraft / Soviet

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by the aircraft project. This article is supported by the Soviet aviation task force.

Military history: Aviation / Russian & Soviet / World War II

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War II task force

Russia: Technology & engineering / History / Military Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Picture

Dont know how feasible it would be but a picture would be a great addition! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

One has obviously been found since this post...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polikarpov I-5/GA1. 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)