Talk:DRDO Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DRDO Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161226065005/http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/drdo-successfully-tests-smart-anti-airfield-weapon-can-target-enemy-airfields-within-100-km-range/articleshow/56156903.cms to http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/drdo-successfully-tests-smart-anti-airfield-weapon-can-target-enemy-airfields-within-100-km-range/articleshow/56156903.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

NOTNEWS?

Gazoth, let's discuss WP:NOTNEWS. DefExpo 2018 was a major defence exhibition that attracted international media coverage, and the information was cited to Defense Update, an international defence magazine. The magazine saw fit to list this weapon, inter alia on their article. That surely makes it worthy of inclusion. Also, for what it's worth, I have seen many articles that mention display of weapons in defence exhibitions. I therefore don't think that the said policy applies here. If you think otherwise, then you should substantiate that claim. It is pretty known now that this sort of information is always due in these articles and they should be kept. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 10:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: Lots of weapons are displayed in defence exhibitions. Since this is a new weapon system, you might feel that the one or two defence exhibitions that it is displayed in is worthy of inclusion. However, a few years down the line after it has been displayed in tens of defence exhibitions, it starts to look like trivia. Additionally, the photo and caption coverage that SAAW received is just routine coverage. If SAAW has received wide and sustained coverage like Tejas did for attending Bahrain International Air Show, it would be worthy of inclusion. —Gazoth (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:DRDO Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon/GA1. 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 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.

• All good.

• You need to explain that ₹ means Indian Rupees, and give an approximate idea of what the amount represents in US dollars.

• Done.

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)

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)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• 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. ∯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..... ∯WBG^converse 11:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: 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?∯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.∯WBG^converse 13:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, and I am okay with that. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 Removed. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 15:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

PCB warhead?

I checked, and yes, the definition on the page is the one used by DRDO. Not vandalism! 🤣 Test35965 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• DRDO SAAW.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Penetration Cum Blast

Penetration Cum Blast lol. You might want to rephrase that. 2.25.65.76 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)