Talk:HAL Tejas/GA2

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 10:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello E1Char, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination and present it shortly. I hope you will find my feedback to be helpful. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 10:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you —Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've completed the review and I'll have to fail this nomination. It is very well structured and certainly has the foundation to become a good article at one point but its not there yet, and needs quite a bit of work. I would recommend sorting them out before re-nominating again.
 * More than anything, it needs a major sourcing overhaul, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of inaccuracies simply because of the sources being used. For instance, there are a a lot of blog quality enthusiast sites. I've listed out the more problematic sources in the comments below, but do note that many of the news sites which I haven't mentioned are also borderline unreliable (e.g; TOI, DNA, etc) and are likely to be not preferred for this kind of topic area. This topic has considerable coverage in academic sources, please consider using them. There are also significant copyright issues in the article among others. For details see the comments and assessment table below. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 19:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * More than anything, it needs a major sourcing overhaul, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of inaccuracies simply because of the sources being used. For instance, there are a a lot of blog quality enthusiast sites. I've listed out the more problematic sources in the comments below, but do note that many of the news sites which I haven't mentioned are also borderline unreliable (e.g; TOI, DNA, etc) and are likely to be not preferred for this kind of topic area. This topic has considerable coverage in academic sources, please consider using them. There are also significant copyright issues in the article among others. For details see the comments and assessment table below. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 19:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * Ref 7 is a website called "indiainfo.com". It appears questionable, I would recommend removing it or replacing it with a better source.
 * Ref 11 is a Wordpress hosted website called "defencejournal.com". This is again a questionable source.
 * Ref 20 is an article of the International Business Times for which there is consensus that it is a generally unreliable.
 * Ref 21 is the website "bharat-rakshak.com" which is an user generated site.
 * Ref 24 is an obscure think tank called Global Security. There should be much better sources for history.
 * Ref 36 is a website called "fighter-planes.com' which appears to be a similar self published questionable source.
 * Ref 38 is again a Global Security citation.
 * Ref 43 is a website called "acig.org" which again appears to be a self published source.
 * Ref 44 is an article in Vijay Times, which is most likely going to be considered unreliable. Its a small English newspaper in north western Karnataka which mostly engages in sensationalism and probably has misinformation in it. There shouldn't be a lack of mainstream newspapers or even scholarly sources covering this topic.
 * Ref 45 is a website called "indian-military.org", which appears to be a self published source as well.
 * Ref 49 is a website called "indiandefence.in" which is a questionable source as well.
 * Ref 50 is a website called "domain-b.com". This may be passable but still it is too borderline.
 * Ref 60 is a website called "frontierindia.net" which s a questionable source as well.
 * Ref 71 is a website called "defencenews.in" which is visibly a blog and hence a questionable source.
 * Ref 76 is a website called "defencetalk.com" which appears to be reliant on submissions making it an user generated site.
 * Ref 88 is an article in OneIndia which is content farm and not a reliable source.
 * Ref 89 is a website called "airforce-technology.com" which appears to be questionable as well.
 * Ref 105 is again a "airforce-technology.com" citation.
 * Ref 113 is an article of the EurAsian Times which appears to be a questionable source.
 * Ref 150 is a website called "facenfacts.com" which appears to be a questionable source as well.
 * Ref 162 is again a "acig.org" citation.
 * Ref 166 is a website called "stratmag.com" which is a questionable source.
 * Ref 169 is a website called "defenseindustrydaily.com" which is a self published source.
 * Ref 170 is again a "bharat-rakshak.com" citation.
 * Ref 171 is again a "bharat-rakshak.com" citation.
 * Ref 172 is again a "frontierindia.net" citation.
 * Ref 173 is again a "domain-b.com" citation.
 * Ref 181 is an article in New Delhi Times, this is a Srivastava Group publication which has gathered a reputation for misinformation.
 * Ref 183 is a website called "defenseupdate.in", which is a self published source.
 * Ref 184 is a website called "defenceworld.net", which is again a self published source.
 * Ref 189 is a website called "aviationonline.info", which is again a self published source.
 * Ref 192 is a website called "mangalaguru.com", which is a questionable source.
 * Ref 199 is a website called "bharatshakti.in", which appears to be a questionable source as well.
 * Ref 204 is a website called "defencestar.in", which is a questionable source.
 * Ref 207 is the website "idrw.org", which is a self published source.
 * Ref 219 is again an EurAsian Times citation.
 * Ref 221 is again a "bharat-rakshak.com'' citation.
 * Ref 225 is again an "idrw.org" citation.
 * Ref 229 is an Youtube link to an unofficial channel.
 * Ref 232 is an article from JagranJosh, which is considered to be generally unreliable.
 * Ref 236 is a website called "infotonline.com" which is a questionable source.
 * Besides the references mentioned above, there is in general a substantial over-reliance on non-independent primary sources and press releases, from my very rough estimation they are cited for almost half of the article. While, such sources may be usable for specifications and models of the aircraft, they should not be relied upon for much of the rest when there is significant coverage of the topic in secondary sources including academic ones, the latter of which have barely been used in the article.
 * There is also occasional synthesis although this does not appear to be very widespread, the article needs a sourcing overhaul anyways.
 * There is plagiarism in the article and as a result copyright violations. Please refer to Earwig's copyvio detector which will help locate where the issues exist, and try to ensure that the likelihood of violation is pushed down to below 20% for any specific source.
 * The references are too poorly formatted, there are duplicate citations, dead links are marked as live and vice versa, many of the citations are unclear about their source, many others have misattributed fields, some of the citations appear to be auto-generated and there is inconsistence in citation style.

Assessment
 Comprehension:

Verifiability:

Comprehensiveness:

Neutrality:

Stability: Illustration:




 * It seems one hell of a work ahead but this detailed review will help me out. Thanks for taking time to review this. -Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW Thanks for mentioning that copyvio detection tool! -Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)