Talk:Sukhoi Su-57/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WelpThatWorked (talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Page Reads well, information flows in a natural way, and all refs resolve correctly. The images look good and provide a clear representation of the Aircraft and it's parts.

• Some refs, namely those from RuAviation.com and janes.com are broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WelpThatWorked (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Citations from RuAviation.com are fine. Janes.com, that is another story. Citations from Janes.com that need work:

39. http://www.janes.com/article/47115/russia-plans-to-receive-55-pak-fas-by-2020

80. http://www.janes.com/article/36539/russia-finalises-pak-da-bomber-design

212. http://www.janes.com/article/38971/russian-t-50-pak-fa-fighter-prototype-catches-fire

BlackFlanker and Fnlayson, would you guys help find replacements? - Josephua (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I had ref 212 replaced. - Josephua (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ref 39 has been replaced. - Josephua (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted ref 80. WelpThatWorked, I addressed all issues you have stated. - Josephua (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Josephua, refs 33, 65, 198 and 221 need to be fixed, and then it's good. I fixed 2 others that needed a little attention. WelpThatWorked (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Josephua, Weird, it wasn't rendering the ruaviation article. Huh. WelpThatWorked (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WelpThatWorked I replaced ref 65 with a ref with an extremely similar title by the same author on the same website with the two articles a few day difference. However, I cannot access the article because I need subscription so I cannot confirm if the article covers it. But I presume that the previous ref was moved to an article with a new title. - Josephua (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

BlackFlanker, can you find replacements for refs 33, 198, and 221? Thanks. - Josephua (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Was able to replace ref 33. Still need refs for 198 and 221. - Josephua (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ref 198 is done. 221 is left. - Josephua (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WelpThatWorked, for ref 221, I have the sources and it is sourced in. But it does not work for some reason and causes an error where the "</ref>" is missing, despite it being there. Idk. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - Josephua (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Nvm. Fixed it. - Josephua (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WelpThatWorked, I fixed all refs. In addition, can you send a bot to archive all the sources, so in case one goes dead, it is archived? Thanks. - Josephua (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Josephua, The bot seems to be having an issue, but the page looks good so unless there are any objections I think I'll close it as a pass WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WelpThatWorked, thank you so much! - Josephua (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Josephua, Don't thank me, I didn't make the article good, I just noticed it was good. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WelpThatWorked, no, thank you for spending the time to do a review for the article. :) - Josephua (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)