Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 05:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Diverterless supersonic inlet is overlinked I will do a prose check the use of the combination 23/30 mm in the lead is misleading. The weapon is a twin 23mm autocannon. What does the 30 refer to? all terms in the body should be in full the first time with the acronym or initialisation in parentheses. After that, you can use the acronym or initialisation. Examples: PAF, INS, HUD, MFD, RDY etc hyphenation consistency - redesign and re-designed there are quite a few non-linked terms or words that should be linked. Thales is one. the DSI information is effectively repeated in the airframe and cockpit section the article in general is overly jargonistic, it reads as if it was written for specialists, not the casual reader. It is also promotional in tone. I appreciate technical information is needed on a complex jet aircraft, but the prose is too full of jargon. It is nearly a fail on that basis, but I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that it can be salvaged in a reasonable period (ie a week after I've finished the review). Just one of dozens of examples would be "more than one million lines of instructions" - this is effectively meaningless to the average reader.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	the lead has a number of citations, which is not necessary for such a subject. Per WP:LEAD
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	see dead links issue.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	there are 11 dead links in the article, these need to be fixed.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	As a comment, the article states that "The Air Force of Zimbabwe reportedly ordered twelve JF-17s in 2004" - I believe that it's since been reported that this either never happened, or the order was cancelled. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] There are several points in the article where it appears to be "out of date". Lead: if it was introduced in 2007 and the first squadron was inducted in 2007, in the last seven years have any more squadrons been brought on-line? Are there still only 49 aircraft in service? Is the number built still correct? Elsewhere in the article: Did Sudan buy any? The Azeri's? Did the Chinese talks result in any other sales?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	reviewed this, there is nothing whatsoever in the article about potential downside or criticism of the aircraft, that doesn't seem likely.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	seems ok
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	There are significant issues with this article in terms of the GA criteria. ~~I am on the verge of failing it, only a concerted effort to address the identified issues in short order is likely to help.~~ I have now failed this article, see below.

Thanks for starting the review. I am busy these days. Hopefully, I will start working on it the next weekend. Fai zan 05:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that this article will fail if the above points are not addressed, seven days are up tomorrow UTC. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have failed the article on the basis of a lack of response over the last seven days regarding the significant issues around prose, verifiability and coverage. I strongly suggest all the above points are addressed before re-nomination. A peer review and GOCE copy edit would also be advisable. It is likely that if renominated without addressing the issues above, the article will be quick-failed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the points above. Removed redundant references from the lead, updated squadron information, expanded the acronyms, removed repetitions, corrected factual errors, delinked overlinked links, added incidents and accidents section, and renominated it. Ping Peacemaker, can you please review it? I am available now and will work to address any further issues. Fai zan 13:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Faizan. It hasn't been copy-edited or peer reviewed as I suggested, only one instance of impenetrable jargon has been fixed, and it doesn't seem stable to me. On that basis, I will not review it again. Good luck with the new nomination. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sir. It was copyedited in August 2014 before this review started, I had requested the guild earlier. I am searching for the instances of jargon and will fix them all. Fai zan 17:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]