Talk:HAL Tejas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 22:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

style/layout

Acronyms should be defined and then shown in parentheses when they are first used if it's reasonable. Or not shown if they aren't going to be used. e.g. "'Tactical Air Support Aircraft' ASR", ASR is not used later in the article. HAL is defined in the lead (though not the first time it's used) and then defined a few times later. I don't know if HAL needs to be defined in the first sentence of the lede (that's up to you), but we should probable only define the acyonym once.
Likewise once we've gone through the trouble of defining and using acronyms we should think about where we do and don't use them. I don't think that decision needs to be mechanical--where it makes sense in the text to write things out we can do that, but we as this is a piece of military equipment we're looking at a lot of TLAs and a lot of organizations and topics so it may make sense to take a holistic look at the article for this issue.
"flight control laws" should wikilink to Flight control modes

sourcing

why is this used to cite "The LCA design was finalised in 1990 as a small tailless..."?
There are a lot of sources which are preemptively archived to webcitation.org but the original seems to load fine for me. Was this done on purpose?
"The F404-GE-IN20 was trial-installed on the Tejas and the engine generated more than 19,000 pounds (85 kN) uninstalled thrust..." This sentence is cited to here, which is an editorial (I think) about cost overruns and bureacratic turf wars in the program. It does support the cited claim, but this is an odd choice.
"All 40 were to be equipped with the F404-GE-IN20 engine." one of the sources for this is this which doesn't say aything about the two sentences which precede it. Neither does the other source (archive link)
"Some defence sources indicate that it will not reach FOC..." cited source says "one source", not "some"

content

The infobox shows USD cost for the program but rupee and USD for the per unit. Is there a reason for this?

LCA programme

"The "Long Term Re-Equipment Plan 1981"" is that the actual name of the plan? I see it written that way in the source, and it's possible that's the name, but it seems odd.
- In the same sentence we note that the long term re-equipment plan talks about the end of the service life for Mig-21s. I don't doubt that this was the case but the cited source (here) doesn't mention the end of service life. Do we have the report on hand?
- The last part of the same sentence is phrased a bit awkwardly, probably to get around closely paraphrasing the source, which uses the word "shortage"--shortage is a good word for what we want to say and we should find a way to say it.
"To better accomplish these goals, the government chose to take a different management approach" Better than what? Different from what?
"Of the five critical technologies..." this sentence is a bit awkwardly worded.
- I also don't see in the cited sources where the glass cockpit has been declared a relative success. Nor is their mention of "These successes have gone mostly unnoticed in the shadow of the problems encountered with the other three key technology initiatives."
- Ah, it's in here as "Of the five critical technologies the ADA identified at the beginning of the LCA programme as required to be mastered in order to design and build a "completely indigenous" fighter, two have been entirely successful: the development and manufacture of advanced carbon-fibre composite (CFC) structures and skins and a modern "glass cockpit."" which is very closely paraphrased without citing.
For this paragraph in general I would recommend rewriting it with the goal in mind of conveying specific claims to the reader. First, that there are 5 critical technologies to the LCA program. Second, that 3 of the five have had challenges while 2 of the five have been relative successes. Third, that the overall program has resulted in 70% of the components being manufactured domestically. If helps, the paragraph immediately before this one can be integrated into it.
"HAL serves as the prime contractor and has leading responsibility for LCA design, systems integration..." This paragraph restates what is in the "To better accomplish these goals, the government chose to take a different management approach..." paragraph.
"...to gain a clearer perspective of which advanced technologies could be developed locally and which would need to be imported." this is very close to the cited source which says "to get a clearer perspective of the advanced technologies that could be indigenously developed and those that would need to be imported."
"However, even among these three, when the LCA reaches the production stage, the MFDs are expected to be supplied by Indian companies." this is also close to "However, even among these three, when the LCA reaches the production stage, one or two may be supplied by Indian companies." in the cited source, including the odd interjection of "even among these three"

Development history

"A review committee was formed in May 1989 which reported that infrastructure, facilities and technologies in India had advanced sufficiently in most areas and that the project could be undertaken." this is basically word for word from the cite ("A review committee was formed in May 1989 which reported that Indian infrastructure, facilities and technology had advanced sufficiently in most areas to undertake the project.")
"Dassault Aviation of France was hired as a consultant to review the PD and provide advice based on its extensive aviation expertise." The cited source is just a timeline and doesn't mention why Dassault would be hired. As with some of the other points, I don't doubt that Dassault has serious experience in the field, but I would expect to see that coming from a source.
"...leading to the development of the final variant that would join the air force and the navy and 8 Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft, and establishment of infrastructure for producing 8 aircraft per year." I think this is better split into two sentences.
"...and an additional amount of INR24.7578 billion (US$400 million) was given for induction into Indian Air Force by obtaining IOC and FOC." I'll be honest I have no idea what this means. what are IOC and FOC? Who allocated the money? Why?
"One of the most ambitious requirements for the LCA was the specification that it would have "relaxed static stability" (RSS)." Probably better as just "One of the more ambitious requirements for the LCA was an airframe with relaxed static stability"
"...which became the first production aircraft to be slightly aerodynamically unstable by design, to improve manoeuvrability." Sort of awkwardly worded. Also if we're going to give a short definition of RSS (and we should) it should go at the top of the paragraph and not as an addendum to a mention of the F-16. I note that we have an RCS definition immediately following this, so we could probably just drop the last clause here and be fine.
"Although Dassault had offered an analogue FCS system in 1988, the ADA recognised that digital flight control technology would soon supplant it." A few things. First, there's no mention of Dassault offering an analog flight control system in that cited source, nor is there mention that digital fly by wire would supplant it. Second, I'm not sure this belongs in the paragraph. It's about the aerodynamic characteristics of the airframe. AFAIK, fly-by-wire systems are needed on negatively stable aircraft (and aircraft with relaxed stability) but they aren't what determines their stability.
"As a result, the ADA was reduced to running weaponisation tests with a weapon delivery pod, which is not a primary sensor, leaving critical tests on hold." this is also close to the cite which says "This resulted in the ADA running weaponisation tests on the LCA with a weapon delivery pod, which is not a primary sensor, being forced to keep critical tests on hold."
There's no mention that cost overruns for the MMR might have had to do with the decision to rely on domestic production, which a few of the sources criticize heavily and attribute as cause for the delays.

Engine and propulsion

"Early on, it was decided to equip prototype aircraft with the General Electric F404-GE-F2J3 afterburning turbofan engine. Simultaneously, in 1986, a programme to develop a domestic powerplant was launched..." nearly word for word from the source: "Initially, it was decided to equip the prototype aircraft with the General Electric F404-GE-F2J3 afterburning turbofan engine. Simultaneously, in 1986, a parallel programme to develop an indigenous powerplant was also launched."
Also copying that source means we wikilink the Kaveri but don't mention it by name until after it is wikilinked.
"In 1998, after Indian nuclear tests, US sanctions blocked sales of General Electric F404 turbofans, leading to a greater emphasis on the domestic Kaveri" This sentence can probably be cleaned up a bit. Also if we just spelled out and linked the F404, we can say that sanctions just restricted import of US engines (unless the sanctions specifically mentioned that powerplant)
"In 2003, by which time the sanctions had been lifted, it was decided..." The sanctions were lifted in 2001 but it's still a bit odd to note that in the way that we do. We could say something like "Sanctions were lifted in 2001 and in 2003 ADA procured..."
We shorten "F404-GE-IN20" to "-IN20" in one sentence then spell it out in the next. Why?
This section could do with a short intro paragraph describing the two major choices in a little more detail and then talking about the history.
"the commercial quotes were compared in detail and GE Aviation was declared as the lowest bidder" this is copied word for word from a DRDO statement given to the source: "the commercial quotes were compared in detail and GE Aviation was declared as the lowest bidder"
"The initial batch will be supplied by GE and the remainder will be manufactured in India under a transfer of technology arrangement" this is also copied from a GE statement in the other cited source: "GE Aviation will supply the initial batch of engines and the rest will be manufactured in India under a transfer of technology arrangement"

Initial production, further testing

"...in the configuration it would be delivered to the Indian Air Force in" This is a bit awkwardly worded
"The objective of the hot weather trials was to prove that the aircraft was in an IOC configuration with the weapon system and sensors integrated." is nearly word for word from the source: "The objective of the current phase of hot weather trials is to prove that the aircraft is in IOC configuration with the weapon system and sensors integrated."
"The sea trials of the aircraft are also being carried out." just "Sea trials..."
"Initial Operating Clearance (IOC) for the Tejas was awarded..." and "IOC allows IAF pilots to use the aircraft." should be combined to something like "Initial Operating Clearance (IOC) for the Tejas was awarded in 2011, allowing IAF combat pilots to operate the aircraft" (I presume IAF test pilots were already operating it)
"The areas that did not meet requirements were power to weight ratio, sustained turning rate, maximum speeds at low altitudes, AoA range, and weapon delivery profiles." the order, and wording (nearly exactly) is copied from here
"The Tejas program has enlisted EADS to help expand the flight envelope to meet service requirements." copied word for word from the source: "The Tejas program has enlisted EADS to help expand the flight envelope to meet service requirements."
"...they deployed a series of weapons, including laser-guided 1,000 lb bombs and unguided bombs" again, word for word from here
"The helmets could have prevented a smooth ejection by hitting the canopy before it was blown off, and represented a serious safety issue, hence flight testing was stopped in August 2012" this isn't word for word but it is certainly closely paraphrasing the source: "The grounding of Tejas, which was kept secret, took place because of the new pilot’s helmets. Since these protruded above the ejection seats, the helmets could have prevented a smooth ejection by smashing into the fighter’s canopy before it was blown off."

Ok. I have to stop here. This article is very long and I'm finding plagiarism and sourcing problems in nearly every paragraph. At this point I don't know what to do. I'm going to fail this article but I need to know that these issues will be resolved. The article is too large and on a topic which is too important to have these issues remain on the page. The article needs to be almost completely re-written to avoid Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Plagiarism which are serious issues.

I can offer help in identifying the sections which are lifted from various sources but I have no idea what has been lifted from things that aren't cited in the article (since some passages are copied from sources in the article but which are cited to other sections). I have to stress again that these are major issues with the article. It's not one or two sentences, it's a large proportion of the article, and that's just the ones I found spot checking sources or looking at odd phrasing. Please get back to me and let me know how we're going to overhaul the article, because it sorely needs it. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news in this regard. Protonk (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hai Protonk, I've somewhat overhauled the article, if you're still here could you please give it a read and please give me your suggestion so that I can further improve it, your help would be much appreciated Thanks! E1Char (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, E1Char. I’m not very active any more and I don’t know if I’ll be able to give this the attention it deserves. Can you go to GAN and ask for a second opinion or another reviewer? If you ask and can’t find one within 2 weeks ping me again and I’ll try and take a look. Protonk (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thanks for responding E1Char (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hai if you're free, can you have a read Protonk ? -E1Char (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, E1Char. I don't think I'll be able to give this the attention it deserves. And unfortunately I've been inactive so long I don't know a particular editor to point you toward who might consider this a fun task. I am very thankful for the improvements you've made since the review--the article did need them and the wiki as a whole is better off for it. I hope you can find a reviewer. If I happen to run into someone who might want to review this I'll send them along. Protonk (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]