Talk:HAL Tejas/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 09:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail based on the prose. The article prose needs a lot of work. Examples (from the first section alone):

Lead - 3 variants mentioned are "Tejas Mark 1, Mark 1A and trainer variant. " but the next sentence mentions Mark 2 -- so 4 variants then?
Lead - Line-replaceable unit - is that appropriately understandable?
"The origin of LCA programme can be traced back to early 1980s." is entirely superfluous because the next sentence details the exact origin.
""initial goal" -- so what was the final/overall goal?
MiG-21 not linked in the first paragraph, linked further below.
IAF not spelled out in main body.
For first instance of ADA and DRDO, surely it should be "the Aero.." and "the Defenc..."
Multi-mode radar/MMR not consistent throughout. Spell out first instance then use abbreviation consistently.
Same issue for fly-by-wire/FBW
"The project definition phase was commenced in October 1986" > "The project definition phase commenced in October 1986"
- Will readers know what a "project definition phase" is?
The reference for this is not after punctutation.
Dassault FBW system referred to in present tense, should be past tense surely since it wasn't used on the aircraft?
Consistency of English variant? Finalised/utilized?
MOS:WTW - "state of the art"
...withdrew its assistance In 1998 > ...withdrew its assistance in 1998
What happened Dassault/why was LM brought in?
"owing to" -- is there a better way to say this?
"put to test" -- inexact
"The quadruplex digital fly-by-wire flight control system, performing flawlessly for over 50 hours" - definitely needs a reference for such high praise.
"Another critical technology needed for LCA was the multi-mode radar (MMR)." -- that point is made in first paragraph
"Initially, the Ericsson/Ferranti PS-05/A I/J-band multi-function radar"
- When is "initially"
- The radar has an article, should be linked
- Is this summary style? Feels far to technical. Could just be "Ericsson PS-05/A radar".
The development of multi-mode was not smooth, as it suffered some setbacks - just waffle.
"Using an "off-the-shelf" foreign radar as an interim option was considered." -- when? why was it not pursued? when was this decision taken?
"ADA met with success in the development of two of the five key technologies identified at the beginning of the LCA programme." - the first paragraph highlights 3 key technologies. So I read this and think, is this 2 more? or 5 different ones from the 3 identified earlier? In summary needs tightened up.
"The development of a multi-mode pulse-doppler radar, once delayed" is repetition
"India's self-reliance goal oriented development for the LCA programme has considerably increased the indigenous components in Tejas and contributed to an aviation industry expansion in the country." is puffery. There is an accurate statement to be made here, but in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
"On 20 December 2021, Ministry of Defence (MoD) in a written reply during winter session of Rajya Sabha clarified" - irrelevant to the point being made here. Summarise.
"The performance of several other modes that had been tested were suboptimal.[25] The problem with the radar was mainly attributed to the lack of compatibility" -- could be said with less words.
(control configured vehicle concept) -- Too much detail? Not linked to an article, but a subsection of an article. Neither the article or subsection contain the term so I think there is a risk of just leaving the reader confused.
"Number built 40 as of 30 September 2021[4][failed verification]"

Quick fail because this is only one section, and at this point I am copyediting the article. The whole article needs a thorough review and tidyup. GA nominations aren't for articles that are such a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria.