Jump to content

Talk:SEPECAT Jaguar/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: Shimgray | talk | 00:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from a first pass through, in order:

Lead:
  • The lead is quite short for an article of this size; it could easily be three or four times the length. It currently just lists operators, and doesn't mention anything about development, role (beyond "ground attack" - nothing about, eg, the nuclear role), operational history, etc.
Addressed this, is it satisfactory? Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The last note about the Indian MRCA isn't in the article, though. Shimgray | talk | 00:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Development:
  • "short field performance" - is this takeoff from a short runway, or short-range operations?
Removed, as the ref did not mention this issue. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the technical collaboration between BAC and Breguet went well..." - did the engine collaboration also work okay?
  • The "Replacement" section of development seems a bit awkward - we leap straight from 1973 to 2007 without anything in the middle. I can see why this is here, but this section might be better moved down to go with the section on operators, broken up to the UK and India seperately.
  • What happened to the Germans? They showed interest in it as a strike aircraft in ~1967, but are never mentioned again.
The interest they showed encouraged those enthusiastic for the project that it was not a dead end with nobody whatsoever with a hnt of interest in it, and may have been a factor in the decision to continue with development, but the German interest next amounted to anything useful in final purchases or formal discussions for purchasing. The source material was as blunt and short, with no further information upon what happened next with the German aspect. We do know that they sourced the Alpha Jet in a joint venture with France, which almost certainly killed the window for the trainer-Jaguar and a small ground-attack-variant-fleet package deal. Kyteto (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I've reworked this a little bit to hopefully flow better. Shimgray | talk | 00:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Design:
  • The start of "Design" has tense confusion - "The Jaguar is ... It had..." - this should probably be made consistent, or have some comment like "As originally designed, it had..."
Think I've sorted this out. Grammar is always a complicated issue. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks clear now. Other than the overwing pylons (!), did the overseas models have any significant change in armament? Shimgray | talk | 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)#[reply]
Actually, one quick problem - I think we've accidentally put it all into the past rather than the current! It talks of the more modern MiG-27 and Su-30 as contemporaries, which strongly suggests it's talking about the aircraft as currently used by India. Shimgray | talk | 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth including a couple of sentences on the engine here?
I think so, I'll get on it. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Operational history:
  • France - is it possible to include a little more detail on why they were retired? The text also implies they remained in the nuclear strike role until the 2000s, which seems a bit odd - surely this would have been handed over to newer aircraft at an earlier date?
This is complicated and informal on my part, but here goes my explaination: The Jaguar was never a 'nice fit' into the Franch Air Force. It wasn't the mainstay of the nuclear-delivery fleet, it was a decent ground-attack jet but amongst all-french rivals such as the more modern Mirage 2000. But what pushed it out was a mixture of its outdated avionics (not a death sentence, but an expensive redesign and refit), the introduction of the Rafale as France's new mainstay fighter in general, and the want to keep the Mirage 2000 in production as long as possible. It was politically better to dump the Jaguar and get Mirage 2000s in their place, as Dassault hoped that India would choose the Mirage 2000 for their next big fighter purchase, worth billions and years of production, if France was still making them and introducing them it shows the buyer that they're still being purchased and are still adding useful capability even in bulk numbers.(the last thing they'd want to show is the French Air Force turning their nose up at it and letting the production shut down) Thus, Jaguar binned due to political convinience, a lack of a necessary role, in need of an overhaul, and loads of Mirage 2000s being brought online at the same time as the big Rafale project. As the Rafale still comes in, many of its abilities shall complete development and come online, I'd imagine the clutter of Mirage 2000s will have to be slimmed down and buyers sought to aquire the redundant airframes. This is my interpretation, and may be flawed, certainly uncitable. Kyteto (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some info added about end of nuclear role - which was in 1992, with withdrawal of the free-fall bombs.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • UK - this all seems pretty clear, though it might be worth noting at some arbitrary point (say 1990) how many squadrons still remained. I'd also bring in the retirement notes from above, here. Two questions: They were equipped with air-to-air capacity - was this ever used?And what were the Boscombe Down aircraft doing through late 2007?
The Qinetic aircraft at Boscombe Down were test aircraft, and had been for several years. I don't recall any instance of the air-to-air abilities being used in the reading I've made for this article; I'll try and choose that abitrary point and read my sources for that last bit of information.
It's not strictly needed, I think, but it gets a little confusing without it - we start with so many squadrons, then some close, then some more close, and you need to read quite closely to figure out how many were left. (Four, I think, by 1992). Shimgray | talk | 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gulf War - I'd raise this up by one level so it doesn't look like an RAF-specific topic, given the French operated more aircraft! Did any of the Omani aircraft see service?
I've shifted it to be a section on its own merit (I had thought it'd look a little odd out on its own, but as it has grown since my first incarnation of it, and it is arguably the most significant engagement of the aircraft model, it can stand on its own fine enough). I have no information in all that I have read and placed into the Bibliography so far that Jaguars operated by Oman entered the fray, and likely they'd have had to undergo the same modification that the (more advanced) French and British Jaguars had to go through to intergrate into the allied command structure, and I've seen no reference to that either, so I'd conclude they weren't. That's not definative, as I've seen nothing to rule them out, but if they were there nothing seen up to this point says so. Kyteto (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other operators - India could probably be raised to a separate section here; there's enough content and they're a major operator. Is the comment about the nuclear role here an estimation that they're capable of it, or is it believed they're actually earmarked for this role? In terms of minor operators, it would be good to know when the various countries received them. There's nothing on Nigeria here at all - there's an unsourced number in the "Operators" section below, but that's all - and the Ecuadorian bit is vague on whether they still operate (or indeed own) them.
History on the Nigerian and Ecuadorian sides is vague. Informally speaking, Nigeria appears to have made little use out of the Jaguars purchased, there's very little out there to go on. Also, the Indian Jaguars are confirmed as nuclear-active with an arsenal to arm and deploy as detirmined by their government, they are an active part of their nuclear deterrent. Kyteto (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense - India and weapons of mass destruction was a bit unclear as to whether they're thought to be active or if they've since been relegated to conventional roles (which is what I'd have expected). One oddity has just occurred to me, though - India had done its first nuclear test in the early seventies, but didn't have a missile capability until much later, and the Mirage wasn't sold to them until the mid-eighties. The Jaguar was sold in 1978; I wonder if there was any political concern at the time that the West was selling India an aircraft known to be used in the nuclear role, when they were on the road to deploying nuclear weapons? If so, it'd be interesting to note. Arms sales are always a touchy political issue! Shimgray | talk | 00:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this seems to suggest the Jaguar was tried with the first bomb design from 1982-86, but that it was eventually written off as unsuitable and the role was handed over to the Mirages. There's a cite to a 2000 book called Weapons of Peace, but not one I have access to. I'll poke around a little and see what I can find here. Shimgray | talk | 00:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current text seems a good compromise - it notes they're nuclear-capable and perceived as such, but doesn't claim they're actively used in that role. Shimgray | talk | 00:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Variants

  • All seems fine, though it's quite spread out. Would it work better as a a table?
I've prototyped a table (see discussion), but it wouldn't be much (if any) shorter - and that's without the photos. The article uses the same format as other aircraft types. DexDor (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not personally fond of the "whitespace-heavy" lists here and in Operators, but if they're standard for the topic then fair enough. Shimgray | talk | 00:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operators

  • No sources given for anything here

Specifications'

  • All looks fine, though if any of the variants had particularly significant changes, a short paragraph afterwards discussing how they differed might be helpful.

I'll go over it for style and so on tomorrow, hopefully, and see if I can spot anything else. Shimgray | talk | 01:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I've removed the French pic and added the Omani one (nice pic!). DexDor (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striking, isn't it! Shimgray | talk | 21:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Style

  • I've given this a pass through for some grammatical infelicities, and hopefully it flows a bit better now. (Please feel free to revert if I've made it worse, of course!). One issue that stands out is the use of accents in the French - is it Bréguet or Breguet, Turboméca or Turbomeca, etc? (I had thought the former, but reading a bit more suggests I may be wrong... either way, we should standardise)
Jane's used Turboméca (with the accent) in 1982-83, but the company itself doesn't seem to use the accent any more -see here. Breguet seem not to use the accent.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

  • Almost there...
  • I'm a little concerned with the bare image links to nuclear-weapons.info, but the data itself seems reasonable enough.
  • "The Decade of the Shamsher: Part Two" doesn't seem to be used anywhere; no other orphans
  • I confess to being a little confused as to which Flight International (etc) articles have gone where - there's some only cited once which are in the bibliography, and some which aren't. Shimgray | talk | 02:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SEPECAT_Jaguar/GA1&oldid=409473032"