# Talk:Polikarpov I-5

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)

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)