Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that this article meets all five criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Found it, but I'm reluctant to use it as the primary because it lacks a page #. All I know is that it's in Volume I.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • The Russian-language site is reported in Firefox as an attack site, by the way.
        • Ignore the attack warning. It's perfectly safe. And you don't even get the warning if you use Safari or Opera, it's just damn annoying when you try and run it through Google Translate using Firefox.
      • Youtube?
        • Hard to argue with a video that shows that it made a flight display.
    • Need full citations for these: current ref 1 (" MiG-9 (I-210)"), 8 ("Mikoyan/Gurevich MiG-3"), 9 ("Airforce_41.xls"), 23 ("Flypast Magazine, August 2007, Key Publishing Ltd") and 24 ("Mikoyan MiG-3")
      • OK, I'll bite. How do I more fully cite 8, 9, and 24 which are websites and already given title, URL and access date, although they're not all displaying. But I dumped #1 as unnecessary. 23 is a legacy; I don't have the issue.
    • Why do many of the books in the bibliography not appear in the references? E.g. Stapfor or Tessitori.
      • Because I don't have them. They were there before and I left them alone as something people might want to pursue.
    • Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Weak Support
The youtube video definitely isn't a Reliable Source and will need to be removed.
The survivors section has been deleted.
Can you please list how the websites are all reliable sources? Simply saying 'they are' isn't good enough for ACR, and especially not if you want to take it to FAC.
Because they list references as are clearly shown if you access them.
The books in the bibliography that aren't used will need to be removed as unused, but I'm not sure that their not being used makes the article comprehensive, especially the other books by Gordon.
Deleted
They could appear in a "further reading" section... —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bullet-points need to be converted to prose paragraphs, and should be avoided at all times.
Why? The bullet points are far easier to read and to understand than a bunch of short, choppy sentences would be.
Most wikipedia articles should have prose, not lists per this part of the Manual of Style. Putting the points into prose would, in my opinion, increase clarity and provide better context, and generally just make the whole thing flow much better; it does break up the article rather rudely as it stands. Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I looked at that after you made your first comment. But I see it as a 'daughter' of the first paragraph which mentions, but does not discuss the changes. It may well disrupt the flow, which is in the beholder's eye, but it does communicate the information better than does the equivalent paragraph. Gunston has a version in paragraph form in his book and it's not great at communicating the info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied it over and loaded it as a fair-use image since the Russians seem to have reasserted control over everything after 22 June 1941.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Weak Support: not happy with with the bullet points, but it seems a tad petty to oppose over it. Skinny87 (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
I support this article for A-class in the areas of quality of prose and copyediting. A good read. As has been noted, please sort out image rights and note that regardless of my POV on the matter, a fair use image will cause you a lot of grief in the review process. Dhatfield (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know it's going to cause me some grief, but there aren't a whole lot of options since the Russians appear to have reasserted copyright retrospectively over the bulk of their photos of World War II. The two other photos on Commons are, apparently, of the replica, which I'm not willing to use since the cockpit area doesn't appear to match the original.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.
  • Please don't start sentences with "But".
  • Changed, usually, to however.
  • Please remove See Also links that are already linked to in the main body of the article.
Otherwise, it looks good, good job. – Joe N 02:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • Your introduction seems a little small, can it be expanded any?
      • Probably, but I'm on the road until next week. I'll see what I can do with it in the meantime.
    • Can you see about locating a line drawing for the specifications section? Most of the other aircraft articles have such drawings, and it would be nice to see one in this article.
  • Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This is very good detail-, structure-, and reference-wise; just a few (mainly MOS) things:
    • I did a fair bit of copyediting for punctuation/citation positioning; rule is that citations always come immediately after the punctuation mark (e.g. comma, full stop), not just before as was the case here in a few places. You might want to recheck the whole article, I just did one section.
    • There's a few endashes where I think emdashes are meant, plus emdashes aren't supposed to have any spaces around them.
    • I tend to agree with Skinny about those bullet points. Yes, it makes the info easier to process but it doesn't look that encyclopedic. I won't oppose at ACR on that count since this level is more about content than presentation, but if you go for FAC I think you might have to bite the bullet there...
    • Content-wise, I got the impression from Bill Gunston in Air Power that, in a nutshell, the MiG-3 was extremely fast (Air Power quotes 407mph, as opposed to 398mph in the article) but was less manoeuvrable than the Yaks and the German fighters. Not sure that really comes across in the intro but perhaps your sources strongly emphasise the high/low-altitude thing, which my ref doesn't mention. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, you've clarified something that's been bothering me for a while about this article. I need to add a section discussing the MiG-3 in comparison to other fighters where the sort of issues that you mentioned can be dealt with. Unfortunately I'll have to wait until I get back to my library to reference speeds for the other fighters even though I have all of my MiG references on hand. I really don't feel like going through website RS battles or not during FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-3&oldid=1136426324"