Talk:Sukhoi Superjet 100/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 02:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i will be taking this review. 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although I haven't been on this article for a long time, I am prepared to have the article get the green plus by the end of the week. - Josephua (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

There are many maintenance tags in the article. These warrant a quick fail but since they are regarding issues with the source i will allow time to fix it.
Note 1 raises a few red flags for me as it mentions that the sources used may be unreliable.
Grammar is not of the best standard, about every paragraph has some grammatical issues.
The style of most of the article is very monotonous. It just goes 'On... In... By...'
The article is well depicted with images
The article is generally good but I have some concerns which i will go into detail later

Hold

Before I include more detailed comments and queries, please fix the important issues that i have mentioned above. Just from the first subsection alone (Background) I have come up with a long list of problems. The article is in need of a thorough copyedit. and you have 7 days to work on it before i determine if can become a GA but try not to drag it out for too long. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 10:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the relatively few regular contributors to this article, I must say I'm not surprised by the assessment above. IMO the article isn't ready for GA status, the request was made too soon.

Regarding the specific comment about note 1, I really don't see what can be done. Unlike Boeing and Airbus, Sukhoi does not publish details of orders and deliveries, and the third-party sites that purport to track the figures are essentially self-published. That isn't going to change any time soon.
Regarding maintenance tags, I count a total of four: two [verification needed] that it should be possible to deal with quickly, and two [better source needed] that relate to sources in Russian, which are allowed per WP:NONENG although of course English sources would be preferred.

Notwithstanding, I'll do what I can to help over the next few days. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rosbif! - Josephua (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comments, since I have no access to the sources that are based on the maintenance tag of [verification needed], I will be unable to access them. In addition, there is a maintenance tag [needs update] for the text "Sukhoi expected to produce 30 SSJs in 2018, as in 2017" under Russified SSJ, which I believe I can fix. For the grammar comment, please be more specific with what is wrong. Otherwise, on the monotonous comment, I believe we can re-organize the sentences a bit. - Josephua (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a webarchive copy of one of the references that needed verification, and I have successfully verified it. The other is for a paper journal; the issue in question is available for purchase from [1] though hopefully someone in the WP:AV community might already have a copy... I've made a request on the relevant project talk page. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ^{[verification needed]} tag was added here without any explanation. What precisely is the problem with the reference? Air International is a reliable source, or aren't we allowed to use offline references anymore?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Marc Lacoste who made that edit which added a host of maintenance tags, most of which have since been resolved. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing Marc Lacoste put those tags in because he wants to know if the claims stated by the Wikipedia text is actually in the sources. Since these sources are probably inaccessible, that is why these tags are there. - Josephua (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. BTW, the statement is not that important and could be left out of the article with minimal harm.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC) And same thing for the number ordered/built table: it could be spin out in a separate article (list of SSSJ100 orders and deliveries or something) with the litigious refs, leaving only a well referenced article.[reply]

@Josephua: The grammar issues are minor but numerous and I don't want this page to become too cluttered so i will refrain from putting the whole list here for now. Also there is no problem with the orders/delivery table being in the article. Featured articles like Boeing 757 also has it. 1.02 editor (T/C) 08:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I will not be able to start any reforms of the article. As the review was started in a time where I just started college, I thought I had the capability to help fix the article based on the review. Even so, I intend for the review to occur during the summer, in which I had time, but since I started college, I have homework assignments being stacked against me, so I will be unable to do anything that is of use. Sorry if I did anything of inconvenience. - Josephua (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a stab at copyediting the Background section, and will continue working through the article as time allows – though probably not within the 7-day "deadline" for this GA review. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I dont mind letting the review run for a while as long at it dosen't drag on for too long. 1.02 editor (T/C) 09:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosbif73: Whats the status of the article now? It has been quite a while since i last saw any activity on the page. 1.02 editor (T/C) 14:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to do much copyediting beyond the Background section – but equally, that was the section that needed it the most. I can't make any promises as to how soon I'll have time to finish the rest. In the meantime, would you mind taking a fresh look at that section to give me an idea of whether I'm on the right track? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I will do another review of the section and let you know what needs to be done. However, I would suggest that I fail the article for now since there is much that needs to be done and since the you and the nominator cant really work on the article now. You can renominate the article when it is of better standard and if you do so please ping me and i will be happy to re-take up the review. 1.02 editor (T/C) 15:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with that tbh. However, Rosbif, I will add, I also nominated the Airbus A350 for good article status five months ago (before I nominated the SSJ) and it is more developed than the SSJ100. I suggest instead of here, focus on the Airbus A350 in case of a possible review. Thank you so much for helping. - Josephua (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Josephua: Ok, If i have time i will try to take up the review but similar to you, my exams are also round the corner. Will close the review as a fail first. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 09:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]