Talk:Yakovlev Yak-15/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 15:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: I changed the dab flyby to flypast as that is the usual term.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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):

   so that it exhausted underneath the middle of the fuselage. Needs rephrasing - "exhausted" is the condition of being tired, woen out.

   Not necessarily. See #10 at [2]

   Yes, but it still reads clumsily. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

   Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

   Good, much better. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

   ''Very few changes were made to the metal fuselage, aside from adding a steel heatshield to the bottom of the fuselage, other than at the aircraft's nose. This was recontoured to house the armament of two 23-millimeter (0.91 in) Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 autocannon, an additional fuel tank above the engine and attachment points for the engine. a little clumsy, could be phrased better.

   How does it read now?

   Much the same, I am afraid. The main problem is that "ery few changes were made to the metal fuselage, aside from adding a steel heatshield to the bottom of the fuselage, other than at the aircraft's nose." the bolded phrase interrupts the flow here. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

   Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

   Much better. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

   it was transferred to TsAGI I think it would be better to use the full name for the institute at this first mention.

   Done.

   The wings were too thin to house they were so they were redesigned to retract into the fuselage. Needs rewording, as it stands it implies that the wings would retract.

   Done.

   I fixed it by changing "they were" to "it was"

   I will look at the lead again when the point about broadness of coverage has been addressed, but it looks a bit thin, not covering much of the development.

   Hard to summarize the development, though if you can think of something...

   Well the number of years in development, and a summary of operational service.

   I added the production date and numbers. The summary of operational service was already there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Statements are adequately cited, sources are RS, no evidence of OR. The on-line source supported the statement, assume good faith for off-line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage of design and development, but nothing about its history of service in the Soviet air force.

   Operational history of Cold-war era aircraft is very sparse, unlike the development history of the aircraft.

   Well, if that is so the article, which purports to be about the aircraft, not just its development clearly fails the criterion. When did production cease? When was it withdrawn from service? Are there any still in flying condition? There must be something on this available. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

   I found one surviving aircraft. Production data is already there. No RS gives withdrawal date. Usage details added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   stable

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):

   One image, licensed correctly

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

   OK, it meets the criteria, so happy to list. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)