Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-1

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the Soviet aviation task force.

Military history: Aviation / Russian & Soviet / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War II task force

Soviet Union Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Technology & engineering / Military Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-1 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 22, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Old talk[edit]

More effort needs to be put into completing the infobox. Askari Mark | Talk 18:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled section[edit]

Someone please type in how much ammunition it could carry for its guns! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.232.231 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A very interesting article. It does however need some tweaks before it can be passed.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The quality of prose is good.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The lead section is too short. It needs to be expanded to become a general summary of the article. The Commons category should be moved to the External links section.
Lead expanded, see how it works now. Commonscat moved.

The lead is still shorter than I would like but since there is a limited history to the aircraft, I'll tick this off.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
The specification details need a reference, cited at the top of the list.
Done.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Citations are well-placed.

C. No original research:
There does not appear to be any original research.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
The article is detailed and focused.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
The article is written from a neutral point of view.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
The article does not appear to be subject to any edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
The sole image is used under public domain rules and is available on Commons.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold until the improvements suggested are made. Harrison49 (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. A very interesting read, and now a Good Article too. Good work. Harrison49 (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]