Talk:Sukhoi Su-35/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The article appears to contain several issue that have deteriorated since its GA promotion. The references are not filled out; there is at least one claim that is not sourced properly; and the lead is adding further confusion to the subject as it does not clearly define the differences between the Su-27M and Su-35BM. The article could also undergo a copy-edit. I recommend the stripping of its GA status pending a cleanup. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any issues should have been brought up on the talk page first, imo. The Lead has not changed in the ~1.5 years since this article made GAN. More specifics on what has actually "deteriorated" would help in fixing them. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues are mentioned above in. The most pressing is the confusion that I feel still exists in the article between the Su-27M and Su-35BM. I have got my hands on several articles that provide much more insight into the Su-35BM's design differences from the Su-27M. At the moment the article is not deserving of the GA status. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 21:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your standards it seems. This article was fine for you to nominate for GAN, but not now. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I frankly see nothing wrong with it. Ever since the article achieved GA status, much development has taken place, from the rumours about China's and Hugo Chavez's interest, to the aircraft's first delivery to the Russian Air Force and continued testing. People have been adding bare URLs over the course of more than a year, leading to a gradual deterioration of the referencing uniformity. And you seriously can't expect me to not change my standard -- it's been almost two years and I have improved my writing greatly during that time. Looking back, I can see areas where I could have improved, which at the time appeared complete and up to scratch. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but you are an involved party. Let a neutral person delist this if they agree. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the GA criteria should be the standard here. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The text is clear that canard foreplanes are a design feature of the SU-35. But they are missing from all of the images. So either the text is wrong or the aircraft pictured are incorrectly identified. Either way, that cannot rate GA as it stands. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The modernized Su-35 (Su-35BM or Su-35S) does not have canards. This is mentioned in the Design overhaul subsection ("The new Su-35 omits the canard and speedbrake"). This is mentioned in the Lead now to make this clear. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 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):
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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

What's the outstanding problem with the scope? Is it just the distinction between the Su-27M and Su-35BM, or are there other scope problems? I recognise the importance of maintaining Good Article standards (if an article were to go drastically downhill, then calling it a GA would devalue all the other GAs too) but is this really something that merits a formal review rather than just a talkpage thread? bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between the two variants, and the test flight and trials programme of the Su-35BM. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The features of the original and modernized Su-35s, along with their basic differences are stated in the article. What more do you expect? On the flight testing, there's not been much details in aviation and defense news outlets, including the Russian RIA Novosti. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a bit of research, you'd be surprised by how much coverage Russian publications have given to the flight test programme. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done research, but can't read Russian. So that does not help me, whatever. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you use Chrome, it will translate Russian articles for you. By Googling "site:vz.ru Су-35" "site:kommersant.ru Су-35" and "site:lenta.ru Су-35", you will see that the Russian media has done an extensive job coverage the jet's development. "Design overhaul" and "Russia" do not adequately cover the Su-35S's development, design, and trials. I will shortly start research and then expand the article. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of this GAR is to delist the article due to its inadequate coverage of the subject's development, design and trials. Nobody has come forward in the last two weeks to present any opposition to the call for delisting; Fnlayson has said that the current coverage of the article is adequate, but he has presumably not taken into account Russian sources. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]