Talk:Lavochkin La-152/GA1

GA Review

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

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: