Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder/GA3
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 11:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- The Article is quite long (>75 KB), so please try to split it into reasonable subpages. Not done
- Repeating the same cite over and over again is unecessary Done Faizan (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Inconsistency: Block 2 and Block II Done
- Please use American or British English, not both. Done
- Has a bunch of jargon that most readers don't understand (for example "fairing"). Doing...
- Lead and Infobox
- Citations are Unecessary in the lead and infobox Done Faizan (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Development section
- Dup link to Thomson-CSF Done
- Link to fighter, bomber, Pakistan, and interceptor Done
- Operational History section
- Should change title to Service History Done
- Dup links to Rao Qamar Suleman and Nigeria Done
- Design section
- Dup links to Head up display and multi-function displays Done
- The JF-17 can be armed with up ... Done
- Variants
- "Mach 2.0+" would do better as "over two times the speed of sound" Done Faizan (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Has a "dubious-discuss" and a "citation needed" tag in the "Specifications (Block 1)" section. Done Faizan (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Has 8 dead links in the article.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Thanks for starting the review, there was a huge backlog. I am taking exams but will try to get this completed as soon as possible. Regarding the 8 dead links, these articles of Janes and Aviation Week were either deleted from their websites or were moved to the paid archives. I could not find them in the available archives too, I cannot find the substitute sources. Faizan (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Universal British English is being used in the article. Faizan (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, regarding the jargon, I propose that the text be abridged. Aircraft fairing is a component of the airframe, but I am also sure that most readers have not heard about it before. Faizan (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- No reasonable split can be made. Generally article is split when it crosses 100 KB. General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is >114 KB. So split is unnecessary. Faizan (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)