Talk:HAL Dhruv/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kyteto (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   A lot of bit-ty one-sentence paragraphs in the Operational History section, these should be paragraphed where possible

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

   Lead does not really summarize the entire article; there is practically nothing on when/why/how it was developed or the development in general. Refs are sorely needed, many aren't formatted properly or inconsistantly E.G. using both "23 September 2009" and "23-09-2009" styles, use one or the other and stick with it. I've taken a large part of the work on getting those dates right on my own back, which is not what I'd expect to be doing really, in my opinion something like that should have been sorted by the nominator before being nominated.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Refs are sorely needed, many aren't formatted properly or inconsistantly. Refs should have a url, title, publisher, and publishing date in them. Additionally, sources must be reliable, citations are for verifying statements in the article, an unverifiable verifier is pointless. Sources should meet the terms of WP:Reliable sources (WP:RS), only verifiable good sources should be used to verify facts.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   At a basic level, the article is completely missing a Variants section, see my comment below on this for more detail. Considerable negative criticism has evaded inclusion, and I'm not confident a rush-job to meet a GA Review's narrow terms will ensure thoroughness.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Having been forced to conduct my own research efforts to meet the existing gaping holes in the articles citation, I have discovered that at least three major events/very public criticisms had completely missed inclusion. I consider this absense to be fundamentally unbalanced and shows a worrying trend that of being unfair with the balance of positive AND negative press that the topic has incurred. I am not adiquetely satisfied that this article provides fair coverage or that effort has been put into ensuring that this article is fair/that the article has been well researched and is factually thorough.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Tons of content has been altered and changed during this review, mainly by me trying to correct simple flaws that shouldn't have been there; and far more still needs to be done

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:

   Many images are bunched on the right alone, some would be better placed on the left as well.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Failed after seven days, issues outstanding have not been addressed, or even attempted in some cases. Next time, the article should be prepared before nomination, basic things like dates should not be a problem at the point where a review is requested; also, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) for the Aircraft Style guide that should be consulted before an aircraft article is nominated (See the details about the Variants section in particular). Additionally, the nominator is supposed to undertake work on the article in response to criticism to improve the article. As there's been no activity since six days ago to respond to this review, I am left with the feeling that this has been a waste of my breath to review this article and provide feedback.

Errors/Comments

There is a lot of work that needs to be done to this article. I had already put down 'ref needed' tags a few days ago as advanced warning; these have yet to be addressed. At minimum, an article should normally have one citation per paragraph to verify its content, all facts should be tracable to one document or another. It isn't impossible to fix this article up, but it shall take some effort; I'm willing to provide a large amount of commentry, guidance, and my time to help you make the improvements to satify my interpretation of the Good Article standards. The comments of all interested parties are welcome, both here and on my talk page. For now, this article is on hold. Kyteto (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• The issues which are pointed out are ongoing.Roh^G ??· 17:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Done 1a and 1b are fixed 2b->Ongoing.Roh^G ??· 05:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1b is not yet completely addressed: "Hindustan's Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) program was first announced in November 1984" I would still like to see a reason/motivation for why the project was started. Was it a political initiative, if so by whom? Every project has a major figure who makes the decision, a company director, a designer, a financial backer, somebody made this call or rallied behind the aircraft pretty hard to get the project going. Also, the date system has not been resolved, it is still all over the place: some dates are "15 July 2008", others are "2011-08-21", and there are some citations that have no date at all. Kyteto (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Deliveries of the Dhruv commenced in 2002, a full ten years after the prototype's first flight, and nearly twenty years after the program was initiated.[citation needed]??? What!! I cant understand!!! It already said that the first flight was on 20 August 1992.I think for each and every sentence citation is not req ,it is already mentioned in some of the Reliable sources.Roh^G ??· 14:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There's been no proof given anywhere in the article that the aircraft was introduced in 2002, not in the Infobox, not at the start of Operational History, not the lead, the three places it is mentioned. It is just taken as agiven with no evidence presented on any occurance, thus there is in effect no proof that the helicopter was introduced in 2002, and that the editor who inserted it into the article was not mistaken/lying/wrong. Kyteto (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional: User:Nigel Ish has managed to find a good citation for the information, and it turns out, some of those dates were actually wrong. That is why I'm questioning some of this page's information for its origins via citation tags, because otherwise mistakes that shouldn't be in a GA would have slipped right by. Thank you to Nigel Ish BTW, you've saved me having to break open a book or three on that one. Kyteto (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Cite has been sourced!Roh^G ??·

• And about MoS dates.The format which are entered are according to MoS and not beyond it.Some are edited with Provelt and some are accessed with Checklinks.Roh^G ??· 14:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the formats are in the MOS, but an article should only use one style at a time. It should not use several at once, it should conform to one standard and use it. The solution is that you need to make it clear which style you want to use here, and then convert 100% of citations to be using it. Asking for an article to be consistant in its formatting is not going beyond the principles of the MOS, the MOS is quite clear when it says: "All the dates in a given article should have the same format (day-month or month-day)." Kyteto (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ok! It's better if I edit with provelt then with Checklinks to access the dates.Roh^G ??·

As long as it's all heading towards one uniform standard, it's all good. Kyteto (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah! you are right!Roh^G ??· 16:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have seen that you are removing the source which exists as,Not RS? I don't think that it was spam or blog or something else!Roh^G ??·

Which source in this case? I have removed several on the grounds of WP:RS, I was unsatisfied that they were reliable and 'good' sources to be used for verifying information. Ususally it is on this line that I think over most: "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." I've knocked out at least one forum post, and an open wiki, that have been added. Kyteto (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Or even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. as per MOS Roh^G ??·

You are correct on your reasoning, which citation are you arguing the case of though? Kyteto (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• This this cite Roh^G ??·

Do you see Domain-B as an "established expert on the topic of the article", a recognised expert on the Dhruv/helicopters? While I admit the front page looks better than the article pages, there's no indication of who's writing these articles or editing, and sources which lack a reputation for effective editorial oversight are to be avoided. Can't we simply use references that are definitely in the clear, such as websites with a printed equivalent E.G. The India Times? I'd be less put-off if the ads were less frequent and the authors/details behind the articles were made more clear Kyteto (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• yes!But the information is already made by News paper editors like Hindu,Times of India... But the article is archived and some of them are removed.So,in this case we can go for Domain-B!And I've been searching for the source file from those Editors (TIO,The HINDU,Deccan Herald,DC...) but I could not find any..Roh^G ??· 16:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The information doesn't still need to be online. It is plenty good enough giving the Title, Publisher, and Date of a reliable newspaper; "information is already made by News paper editors like Hindu,Times of India" The citation is there as a statement of proof to this effect, so somebody can trace where a peice of information has come from. If it can't be cited to a good source, then it should be removed, not a less-than-good source used instead. Either it is verified as true, or if it can't it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. WP:Verifiability over Truth is the principle in motion; we can't care if it's true, if it can't be proved to be, it doesn't belong. Kyteto (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha!What do you want to say??I couldn't understand.If you mean this(That the data has been published by particular News Paper (E paper) and the data been archived with only headlines).Then when we check with Check-links we'll found that cite/source to be dead (link rot,as there is no content). And particularly about edit wars, as there is no RS(Taking your words into consideration) I/we are trying to cite RS.So,we'll definitely edit the article to add a cite (But you want more RS to cite the article and removing the cite and adding tag cite needed). I know that your extremely trying to cite this article to make it a perfect GA (Make it as FA).But did you find any more RS to cite this article? :)Roh^G ??· 04:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is miles away from being a perfect GA. There's yet to be an explanation of why the helicopter was developed in the first place; there's no Variants section; half a dozen citation tags are still outstanding. I've found good cause to believe that article as I initially reviewed it was one-sided and avoided a great deal of the criticisms made. And I shouldn't be the one doing most of the legwork to improve this article: as a reviewer I should be giving you an appraisal of the article's quality and conformity to standards, pointing out the flaws and areas for improvements, and then stepping back to let the nominator fix them. The lack of activity on addressing some of the issues is disheartening to say the least. This article was really nowhere near ready to be nominated; the lack of preparation or consultation with WikiProjects such as WP:Aviation, who would have given you pointers and assistance if perhaps they had been given a head's up to your intentions, shows. Kyteto (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, does www.india-defence.com count as a WP:RS?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, my instict says no, the intrusive banner ads doesn't do much to instil confidence in me. I would err on the side of caution, and replace them with 100% solid references where possible, no need to take a chance if there's a firmly correct source available. Kyteto (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a problem. This article lacks a variants section; a pretty critical section for an aircraft with multiple variants. There's the anti-submarine one, the naval transport/search and rescue one, the regular transport, the armed variant, at least one civilian variant, and possibly more. I've seen references to Dhruv Mk I, II, III, and IV. These should be explained in a section of its own, it is standard article layout information. See the Variants section of Bell-Boeing_V-22_Osprey as a classic example of how this should look. Kyteto (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It is my intent to close this review in the next 24 hours, unless other editors wish to have additional time to tend to problems and address the issues I have identified. The installation of a Variants section is essential if this article is to pass, to define the different models and production batches of the Dhruv that are currently completely unexplained/unlisted/poorly covered. Kyteto (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)