Talk:HAL AMCA/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Good work so far. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * prose: there are quite a few grammatical errors, irregular capitalisation and spelling issues that I can see. For instance, there is a mixture of US and British English variation. Either would be fine, but I think consistency should be applied (e.g. "defence" (British) and "supermaneuverability" (US); also you use "program" and "programme". Additionally, there are non sentences, e.g. "Trapezoidal wings in a semi shoulder-mounted cantilever state", and sentences that are missing parts of speech, e.g. "The total length of aircraft around 15.7 m and a wingspan of 11.6 m, much greater than previous design." I have done some copy editing to demonstrate the issues that I see.
 * citations: there are quite a few areas that are uncited. I have tried to mark these with "citation needed" tags. I believe references should be added in these places;
 * references: "Login". aviationweek.com. Retrieved 6 April 2015. --> this should be consolidated with a WP:NAMEDREF like many of the others, instead of being repeated, or if they are in fact different refs (which is what it appears they are), they should be given different titles.
 * references: " Barau 2005, p. 274" --> more information should be provided to allow readers to access this work. What is its title? Who published it? If you wish to use short citation style, a full bibliography should probably be added
 * Ok, I think I've worked out that this citation refers to Barua (note different spelling, though, which can be found on the Jaguar article): This is problematic, as the reference does not support the statement it has been placed against, i.e. that the AMCA  is intended to be the successor to the Sepecat Jaguar. The other reference beside this information is from 1988 and I would doubt it mentions the AMCA, either. In this regard, I have to voice some concerns about some of the source/text fidelity. For me, this is a fail point and should be addressed before re nominating. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * references: some of your citations have accessdates and others do not;
 * bare url: http:// www.livefistdefence.com/2012/09/indias-amca-shape-tweaked-again.html?m=1 --> this should be formatted for consistency with the other citations
 * I have fixed this
 * the original research, verification needed and dab links maintenance tags should all be dealt with
 * coverage: the naval variant section consists of a single sentence. If possible, I suggest adding some description of how the variant would different from the classic version;
 * the date format in the article is inconsistent. For instance, compare "14 February 2015" with "2015-11-03". This should be consistent and probably should use the first style)
 * anyway, that is it from me for now. I will place the review on hold for seven days, and come back to see how it is progressing. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them here. I will be watching this page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been no attempt to address these concerns in the past seven days, as such I will fail the article at this time. Once the issues raised have been addressed, please feel free to renominate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)