# Talk:Polikarpov TIS

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polikarpov TIS/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Canadian Paul 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article right now! Canadian Paul 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Under "Design and development", fourth paragraph, "Mikulin" requires disambiguation.
Done.
I don't think that the lead meets WP:LEAD just yet... there's a little more information in the body that could be summarized to draw the reader in I feel. Even just an extra sentence or two would be nice.
See how it reads now.
The image File:PolikarpovTIS.jpg needs a better fair use rationale. Under "other information", it should have information on why it is not replaceable. It's obvious from the article, but people reviewing the image probably won't read the article. It may be beneficial to use Template:Non-free use rationale
Done.
The first paragraph has no citations/references. There should be at least one per paragraph. The phrasing of the last sentence is somewhat awkward as well, but maybe that's just me.
Agreed.
Under the "Comparable aircraft" section, are these suggestions from the same source as the specifications? I'm just curious as to the method in which they were chosen to be "comparable".
Aside from the Pe-2, which should have been the Pe-3, they're all twin-engined fighters.
The prose overall seems a bit more casual than encyclopedic, but I'll give it another look once the above concerns have been addressed. I am going to put the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that changes can be made. I'm always open to discussion, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up in real life, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 16:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I tweaked a few small things, but overall I believe that it now meets the criteria. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 00:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)