Talk:Sukhoi Su-37/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Roh^G ??· 11:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nominator: Sp33dyphil

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Errors/Comments

• please try to find a picture and include one.

2nd opinion

The reviewer asked me to provide a second opinion here. I will read the article carefully and fill in my comments below. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Infobox and lede are good, "See Also" is appropriate, all similar to the featured Boeing 777 article.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No problems.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No problems
	2c. it contains no original research.	None detected.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All major questions answered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not a problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The only image is correctly tagged and OTRS approved as free.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Placement and caption are good.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passes all criteria.

Questions and issues

These should either be fixed, or you should explain why they would not improve the article.

• 1b: The lede should summarize information from all sections of the article, without introducing any new information. (This lede does that adequately.) As a result, there is no need to cite sources in the lede; instead, the same facts should be cited where they are given in the article itself. This lede cites a fact given in the body of the article, and it's not sourced there.

• 2a: You have "Sukhoi demonstrator crashes during testing" (Flight International) as an external link, but it's already included as a source, so it's not needed here.

• 2a: You might want to consider having all citations written out in long form in the "Bibliography" section (perhaps renamed), and short-form cites only used in the "Citations" section. This will make the citations more consistent.
  • Explanation: See this edit for an example. I don't want to insist on one reference format over another; I just want the references to be consistent. Right now, some are Harvard Ref abbreviations in the "Citations" section linking to full citations in "References"... others are full citations in the "Citations" section. Now I understand the unauthored links can't really be made into Harvard citations, so I guess those can remain as is. But for Frawley, Velovich, Gethin, and Fomin, these refs need to be consistent with the others. (Frawley needs page numbers too, if possible.)
    • Velovich, Gethin, and Fomin are still in the footnotes written out as full citations, not as harvard references, and they are still not listed in the "References" section. Please format these like Gordon or Tartar. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Is it necessary? I mean, these references are only used once. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I guess not. It's my own preference, but all the data is there, so it's not a real problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• 2b: The final sentence under "Operational history" is not sourced.

• 2b: Your main sources are offline, so I cannot spotcheck. Can you verify for me that all the information in the first paragraph of "Design and development" can be found on page 63 of Gordon? Can you verify that the article has not been closely paraphrased from the sources?
  • I still need verbal verification from you on these points. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done except for 2a (I don't understnad what you want me to do) and 2b (ongoing). Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) All done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Current status

The only problem I'm currently having is your reluctance to talk about your use of sources. It's a serious problem when editors source a statement with an offline reference that doesn't actually back the statement up. It's a much bigger problem when editors copy text from sources word-for-word, or sentence-for-sentence in close paraphrasing. (Most people who do this don't mean to do anything wrong, but it can still put Wikipedia in legal trouble.)

So, as I asked above, can you tell me whether the offline sources cover the material they where the footnote is? (For instance, can all the information in the first paragraph of "Design and development" be found on page 63 of Gordon?) Can you verify that the article has not been closely paraphrased from the offline sources? I'm willing to trust you, but I need you to tell me. If there are sourcing problems, I can help you fix them.

Once that issue is resolved, this will pass GA status. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 11:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to find Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker: Air Superiority Fighter in my book shelf, but, I can guarantee with my utmost honesty that the paragraph had not been closely paraphrased. Here's the paragraph from Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker:

Thrust-vectoring control (TVC) was the solution. It was the key to ultra-maneuverability that enabled the fighter to remain in the zero-speed/high-alpha mode for three or four seconds (i.e., long enough to get a lock-on and fire a missile) or quickly recover from this mode.

The Sukhoi OKB began initial TVC studies as early as 1983. The Western press then described two-dimensional vectoring nozzles as the best option; however, General Designer Mikhail P. Simonov insisted on using axisymmetric vectoring nozzles. (Later events showed that he was right. Sukhoi did research on both types of nozzles, but the experimental 2-D nozzle suffered from severe technological problems.) SibNIA conducted a series of experiments using scale models to test nozzle operation. By 1985 Sukhoi engineers had a clear picture of the forces generated and work began on thrust-vectoring engines. Thus, by the mid 80s the Soviet Union possessed the know-how to create a TVC fighter.

In 1988 and 1990 Sukhoi began a series of tests with the LL-UV (KS) and LL-UV (PS) test-beds. On these aircraft the vectoring nozzle could only move up and down. The results were generally encouragin& and work proceeded on a TVC version of the TlO-M.

Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing issues are almost always caused by users simply not understanding what's allowed and what's not; it's rare that there's actual deception involved. You're obviously a trustworthy user, and since you've assured me that you didn't closely paraphrase the sources, that's good enough for me. All other issues have been resolved promptly. Congratulations. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Sorry about my reluctance to talk, it was just that I couldn't find the book. Cheers! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)