# Talk:Tupolev Tu-12

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tupolev Tu-12/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CrowzRSA 01:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 Doin...

Not so much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Before I pass the article, I was wondering if there is any missing information, because there is only one article with prose. CrowzRSA 02:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand. What do you mean only one article with prose?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant section. I mean, most articles have at least two. CrowzRSA 21:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I added a subsection.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It does look a little better, but should the section be renamed History, and the section below it be made into a subsection named Development. Like this:
History
Development
Testing and evaluation
CrowzRSA 01:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems rather elaborate for a five-paragraph article. And the testing is usually part of the development process.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay. CrowzRSA 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Result
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: 
CrowzRSA 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)