Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): {{GAList/check|}y} b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * Some citation and clarify tags need attention
 * To be honest, I think some of these tags are excessive. What the Good article criteria are not advises: "Asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria, in particular, asking for "more" inline citations even though all statements in the required categories are already cited. (Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules.)" I think quite a lot of them, such as the citation tag on a sentence introducing the FCS error in testing, when the next two (cited) sentences detailing the FCS crashesfixes are both cited, the existence is already proven and sources by the next sentences. Kyteto (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is the text you are referring to: During the test programme, concern surfaced about the aircraft's avionics, specifically the fly-by-wire flight control system (FCS), and the relaxed stability design configuration.[10] On 2 February 1989, the problem was highlighted with the crash of the prototype while landing at Linköping;[10] Test pilot Lars Radeström was able to walk way with only a broken arm. The cause of the crash was identified as pilot-induced oscillation (PIO), caused by problems to the FCS's pitch-control routine.[10]

It is true they all need to be cited from somewhere; we're using the same source for the entire paragraph, peppering every single sentence-end with the same citation (and none others mixed in) is atypical, unusual. I've seen entire paragraphs cited to one source, given at the end of the paragraph, which looks much less ugly. I just find it unusual, and I noticed user:Fnlayson referred to a similar instance under WP:CITECLUTTER. Kyteto (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * During the test programme, concern surfaced about the aircraft's avionics, specifically the fly-by-wire flight control system (FCS), and the relaxed stability design configuration.
 * Needs a cite that concern surfaced etc
 * On 2 February 1989, the problem was highlighted with the crash of the prototype while landing at Linköping
 * Needs a cite for the prototype crash and that this highlighted the problem
 * Test pilot Lars Radeström was able to walk way with only a broken arm. The cause of the crash was identified as pilot-induced oscillation (PIO), caused by problems to the FCS's pitch-control routine.
 * Needs a cite for the cause of the crash
 * I am happy to discuss anything you believe is excessive. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this is CITECLUTTER looking at your text above Asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria, in particular, asking for "more" inline citations even though all statements in the required categories are already cited in this case all the statements were not cited, there was no way of telling that the cite at the end of the paragraph covered all the text and one cite per paragraph is the minimum requirement for a B Class article. What I would call CITECLUTTER can be seen in the Norway subsection The rival Lockheed Martin proposal amassed US diplomatic and political support.[125][126][127][128] there is no need for four cites for that sentence, all to a dubious web site. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "there was no way of telling that the cite at the end of the paragraph covered all the text" I understand this objection, but that issue is resolved by accessing the source. I randomly chose a MilHis FA article, 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines, see the Formation and Deployment (1942–1943), and to a lesser extent the Tet and Its Aftermath (1968), section. If an FA doesn't feel the need to spam the same source over and over again throughout a paragraph cited all from the same source, why would a GA? Multiple FAs are like this as well. With the Norway sentence, you have picked a good example there, and it will be rectified. Kyteto (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In the see also section what is the criteria for inclusion as Eurofighter being twin engined seems out of place.
 * They are so similar in role and era, they frequently compete for the same contracts: The main modern air defence fighter of a nation. Kyteto (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Notes 1 and 2 need citations.
 * Reliable sources what makes these web sites reliable: defense-aerospace.com-Gripen International-Flightglobal.com-stratpost.com-milaviapress.com-practicus.com-folha.uol.com-defencetalk.com-defenseindustrydaily.com-tacticalreport.com-WikiLeaks.
 * Wikileaks, Milaviapress, tacticalreport.com, defense-aerospace.com and Practicus are all gone now. Gripen International, Flightglobal.com, defenseindustrydaily.com, folha.uol.com and stratpost.com are all recognised news publishers used in other Wikipedia articles. They're all formal sources, especially Gripen International, that's the manufacturer. Kyteto (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Depending on response from above all the Gripen International web links go to the same page named SAAB GROUP and do not support the claims and is it a secondary or primary source?
 * It turns out Saab very recently redesigned their site, which broke all direct links. Me and Fnlayson spent time to get them all redirected now. Kyteto (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Citation 31 goes to a blog even if it is Bill Sweetman
 * Citation 38 goes to a blog
 * Citation 60 needs the author added Tim Hepher
 * Citation 69 also
 * Citation 81 does not support claim
 * If is this the reference (# 77 now) after the Surat Thani Airbase sentence, then the wording has adjusted to what the reference does cover. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Citation 84 marked as dead goes to this page and does not support claim
 * Link replaced by one from manufacturer's site. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Citation 86 claims its from the BBC but goes to this site
 * This isn't normally a problem, newsbank.com is an archive/dump for newsarticles from hundreds of publishers, typically we cite the publisher of the archived article, not the archive itself. The URL is there for greater access to the article than having no link at all. It isn't a spoof attempt, but a deliberate cite. Kyteto (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Citation 79 goes to the company main page does not support the claim made
 * Citation 116 needs access date or publishing dates
 * Citing_sources states that the access date for sources of this nature is only necessary if the publish date is missing, it isn't necessary to have both, just one or the other. I'll find the publishing date. Kyteto (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * you are right
 * As does 117 also needs the author details
 * Citation 130 needs author details added
 * I believe I have addressed the correct reference. Kyteto (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Citation 138 needs author access or publishing dates
 * I believe I have addressed the correct reference. Kyteto (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a number of links that go to disambiguation pages Canard, E24, Offset, Real-time and ADA
 * Citation style number 8 for example uses the Harvard style while others do not, they should all be the same for consistency.
 * The Incidents section needs expanding or incorporating into another and a cn tag fixing.
 * The Incidents and accidents are covered in a separate article and this section summarizes that in general agreement with WP:Summary style. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It still needs a cite and a single sentence to summarise a 2,000 word article would be better added as part of the see also section, expanding it or getting rid of the section by incorporating it into the rest of the article. It could easily go in with operational history the same way the crash of the prototype is dealt with. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I say it did not need citing, just not expanding. Will try to expand some, while keeping a balance. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * All that seems to be left is the incidents section Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

On hold
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Point 3 - Flightglobal is the website of Flight International, Gripen International is Saab's Gripen site.
 * Point 6 - Bill Sweetman is a professional journalist/expert in the field and its hosted by Aviation Week - a well known aviation periodical which should get it past WP:RS.
 * Point 7 - this is again by a named journalist on Aviation Week - again this passes WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 81 - "Thailand purchased six (the eventual total could be forty) Swedish Made Gripens" p. 163 seems to support the claim made for plans of up to 40 for Thailand.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)