Version 2.004; ttfautohint (v1.8.3) -l 8 -r 50 -G 200 -x 14 -D latn -f none -a qsq -X ""
Issue
Although Noto’s italic glyphs for lowercase characters used in well-known Cyrillic orthographies like modern Russian are cursive rather than oblique, the less well-known derivatives of those characters are slanted, even when cursive glyphs are attested. For example, Noto’s italic ⟨т⟩ looks like an italic Latin ⟨m⟩, but its italic ⟨ԏ⟩ looks like an oblique ⟨ԏ⟩. This inconsistency should be resolved by changing the obscure characters’ glyphs to match the basic ones from which the are derived.
Here follow some sources showing cursive glyphs for the relevant characters. I have also found examples of oblique glyphs, but I do not include them here: my point is not that the oblique glyphs are wrong, but that they are inconsistent for Noto.
The only evidence I could find for italic U+A681 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DWE is handwritten cursive, not printed cursive, which weakens its relevance. However, for U+050F U+050F CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER KOMI TJE, the printed cursive evidence matches the handwritten cursive evidence, showing that handwritten letters in old primers do at least sometimes match their printed cursive forms. Also, I found no evidence of an oblique U+A681. Therefore, I think U+A681 should get a cursive glyph in Noto, unless a printed oblique one is found.
All the examples I could find of italic U+0495 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE WITH MIDDLE HOOK were oblique, even when U+0433 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE was cursive. That is unless the italic U+04F7 I found should be analyzed as U+0495, but I don’t think it should, because they look so different.
Cf. notofonts/latin-greek-cyrillic#136, which discusses some of the same glyphs.
Character data
ғҧӷԏԫꚁꚉꚋ
U+0493 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE WITH STROKE
U+04A7 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER PE WITH MIDDLE HOOK
U+04F7 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE WITH DESCENDER
U+050F CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER KOMI TJE
U+052B CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZZHE
U+A681 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DWE
U+A689 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZZE
U+A68B CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER TE WITH MIDDLE HOOK
nizarsq
commented
4 years ago 
Font
NotoSans-Italic.ttf NotoSerif-Italic.ttf
Where the font came from, and when
Site: https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-fonts/blob/b96304716598bc0da16eb35512b5032eb452b4e5/hinted/ttf/NotoSans/NotoSans-Italic.ttf Site: https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-fonts/blob/b96304716598bc0da16eb35512b5032eb452b4e5/hinted/ttf/NotoSerif/NotoSerif-Italic.ttf Date: 2020-12-25
Font version
Version 2.004; ttfautohint (v1.8.3) -l 8 -r 50 -G 200 -x 14 -D latn -f none -a qsq -X ""
Issue
Although Noto’s italic glyphs for lowercase characters used in well-known Cyrillic orthographies like modern Russian are cursive rather than oblique, the less well-known derivatives of those characters are slanted, even when cursive glyphs are attested. For example, Noto’s italic ⟨т⟩ looks like an italic Latin ⟨m⟩, but its italic ⟨ԏ⟩ looks like an oblique ⟨ԏ⟩. This inconsistency should be resolved by changing the obscure characters’ glyphs to match the basic ones from which the are derived.
Here follow some sources showing cursive glyphs for the relevant characters. I have also found examples of oblique glyphs, but I do not include them here: my point is not that the oblique glyphs are wrong, but that they are inconsistent for Noto.
The only evidence I could find for italic U+A681 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DWE is handwritten cursive, not printed cursive, which weakens its relevance. However, for U+050F U+050F CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER KOMI TJE, the printed cursive evidence matches the handwritten cursive evidence, showing that handwritten letters in old primers do at least sometimes match their printed cursive forms. Also, I found no evidence of an oblique U+A681. Therefore, I think U+A681 should get a cursive glyph in Noto, unless a printed oblique one is found.
All the examples I could find of italic U+0495 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE WITH MIDDLE HOOK were oblique, even when U+0433 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE was cursive. That is unless the italic U+04F7 I found should be analyzed as U+0495, but I don’t think it should, because they look so different.
Cf. notofonts/latin-greek-cyrillic#136, which discusses some of the same glyphs.
Character data
ғҧӷԏԫꚁꚉꚋ U+0493 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE WITH STROKE U+04A7 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER PE WITH MIDDLE HOOK U+04F7 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE WITH DESCENDER U+050F CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER KOMI TJE U+052B CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZZHE U+A681 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DWE U+A689 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZZE U+A68B CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER TE WITH MIDDLE HOOK
Screenshot