Talk:DRDO Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 20:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A quick first thought. This is low on images. How about putting the DRDO logo at the top of the infobox with a caption along the lines of 'The Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon is being developed by the Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation'? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Done.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 08:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to u|Winged Blades of Godric.
 * I have done some copy editing. Could you check the diff and flag up here anything you are not happy with.


 * You need to explain that ₹ means Indian Rupees, and give an approximate idea of what the amount represents in US dollars.
 * That's astonishingly cheap.
 * As you are probably aware, this article will need constant updating if the weapon enters service, or its grade will slip.
 * Congratulations. A densely cited article meeting all of the requirements of a GA. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. A densely cited article meeting all of the requirements of a GA. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That's all I can find. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing this article, it is much appreciated.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 05:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Earwig shows a big red flag, but it turns out that Defence News Club had lifted large parts of the Wikipedia article. Lazy journalism. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My reading of the copyright tag on the image is that its use is permissible in the way it is used in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the image was removed a few days after I added it, with the following rationale: "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid WP:NFUR for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation."  MBlaze Lightning  talk 03:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Kindly put the review or promotion on hold.I will be chiming in shortly, within next few days. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Winged Blades of Godric. Would you care to quantify "few"? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Winged Blades of Godric, now that almost a week has passed since you left that comment, tell us what your concerns are, if you have any. Note that the reviewer found no potential issues and I am also unaware of any.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 04:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay.I don't have much spare time to spare and jot a note, over the ensuing days and at any case, it's not much serious stuff..... &#x222F; WBG converse 11:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I was a bit reluctant to continue the review as I know that a lot of what you do is deleting promotional stuff. But I didn't see that here. I'll wrap the assessment up and you can come in when you have more time. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On a side-note, surprisingly, the weight of the device seem to not corroborate among sources as to a precise value.Whilst, the press-release ought to be the most accurate, can we re-frame the sentence in another manner? &#x222F; WBG converse 13:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Note that The Times of India article which you are apparently referring to was published on May 23, 2016 following a single test in Bengaluru. Since then, the weapon has underwent a number of tests, so the information present there is quite old. The weight of the weapon is officially 120 kg as the press statement and subsequent articles and news reports confirm ( 1, 2 , 3 ).  MBlaze Lightning  talk 14:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does a randomly-thrown-in under the wraps deserves an an entire line:--According to a report in The Times of India, the development of the weapon was kept secret..I find it of undue weight and would like it to be excluded.If more sources have emphasised/mentioned it, obviously my point stands nullified. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, and I am okay with that.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 14:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * .  MBlaze Lightning  talk 15:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)