Piaggio Stella P.IX has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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. Review: July 5, 2021. ( Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Engines 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 This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force. Military history: Aviation / European / Italian 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 European military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Piaggio Stella P.IX/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk · contribs) 13:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 13:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Basic stuff and comments

• Short description, infobox, and lead all look good.
• I removed the pipelink for Italian to Italy per WP:OVERLINK.
• Citations are reliable and properly cited.
• Information is all sourced.
• Categories are in alphabetical order.
• That's it! Great work.

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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): d ( copyvio and plagiarism): 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:
· · ·