The article has already gone through a failed ACR, during which I became inactive and so the issues raised were not addressed. I've tidied the article up the last few days. Any comment would be appreciated. Sp33dyphil (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Nice try Sp33dyphil, but you have to remove the "A-class=fail" when you renominate. (Change "fail" to "current".) If you don't do that, the Bot will figure that your nomination has been failed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
SupportComments: G'day, interesting article. I had a quick run through the article and did some copy editing and I have a few comments/suggestions:
is there a reference for this: "The four-nation project would eventually result in the Eurofighter Typhoon"?
The previous sentence mentions the Eurofighter project, which resulted in the Typhoon. Sp33dyphil (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion then is to move the ref to the end of the paragraph, otherwise it appears to be uncited. Additionally, from a copy editor's perspective I'd suggest rewording it slightly to: "The four-nation project eventually resulted in the production of the Eurofighter Typhoon." AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
is there a reference for this: "The French government would not proceed with a purchase of the twin-engine fighter."?
My suggestion then is to move the ref to the end of the paragraph, otherwise it appears to be uncited. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
additionally, the above sentence might flow better if it were reworded slightly. For instance, "The French government would not proceed with a purchase of the twin-engine fighter" could be changed to "The French government later announced that it would not proceed with a purchase of the twin-engine fighter."
Sorry if it is not clear enough. I would've thought that the fact that the French Navy purchased the Rafale is because the government did not buy the F/A-18, and so I think that would be apparent in the article. Besides, I'm not aware of any such announcement. Sp33dyphil (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, then my suggestion is to change the sentence construction. "The French government did not proceed with a purchase of the twin-engine fighter." would be fine, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
please check the English variation you are using, I see a mixture of British and US English. For instance, "defense", "kilometers" and "maneuverability" (US) but also "defence" (British). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: I've converted all instances of defence into defense except for mention of the Indian and Canadian defence ministries, which use British English I would have thought. Please tell me if you would like them changed as well. Appreciate your comments. Cheers Sp33dyphil (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
G'day, ok thanks for clarifying that you are using US English, I actually assumed the other way around but didn't want to tinker without clarifying. There are a lot of British English words remaining. For instance: favoured, optimised, programme, specialised, metres, signalling, reorganised, refueling, litres, modernised, digitisation, prioritises, manoeuvring, minimisation, minimise, colour. Please adjust these to US spelling for consistency. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Why switching to US spellings? I can't clearly tell from the earliest versions of the article which spelling version was established first. But being a European topic, it should proably use British/Inter'l English spelling such as defence, except for quotes and proper names that use US spellings. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
TBH, I've made the changes above because I thought (short-sightedly), given AustralianRupert's examples, that the majority of the spelling was in American English. Which is wrong because I write my articles using British English. I will revert my changes. Sorry for the confusion. Sp33dyphil (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Reference # 1 is just a bare url, which should probably be formatted the same as the other references with details such as the title, publisher, accessdate etc
watchout for overlink; the duplicate link checker tool highlights the following possibilities: Delta wing, Afterburner, Carrier-based aircraft, Avionics, Canard (aeronautics), Knot (unit), Data fusion, MICA, General Electric F404, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, Thales Damocles, Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, SEPECAT Jaguar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added my support now as my comments have been dealt with. Good luck with the rest of the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments It's good to see this detailed article back at ACR. I have the following comments:
"Dassault describes the Rafale as an omnirole fighter" - does anyone else? I wouldn't put much weight on what the manufacturer calls the type ('multi-role' is the common term, and means the same thing)
"capable of simultaneously performing air supremacy, interdiction, reconnaissance, and airborne nuclear deterrent missions" - this might be technically feasible, but an aircraft armed with nuclear ground attack missiles is never going to be used for any purpose other than nuclear strike. More generally, the claim that the aircraft can "simultaneously" conduct these roles is a bit questionable - while ground-attack Rafales might be able to self-escort themselves to targets against modest opposition (a common feature of virtually all modern fighter bomber aircraft), they can't fight other high-end aircraft without first disposing of their ground attack weapons.
That's the language used by Dassault, and Flightglobal acknowledges it. Furthermore, the word polyvalent is used by the Interavia when describing the Rafale. It means the same thing as omnirole. Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest sticking with the common term - this appears to be a PR term which Dassault is using to differentiate the aircraft from its competitors, but doesn't hold much water (F-16s, F-15s. Typhoons and Gripens are also very good at a range of roles). Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, are you sure that France conducts nuclear-armed deterrent patrols? - I thought that the countries which did this ceased doing so after the Cold War.
I'm not sure if that has stopped. Reworded. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
"The Rafale is distinct from other European fighters of its era in that it is almost entirely built by one country" -doesn't this also apply to the Gripen? (leaving the Eurofighter as the only international project). I suppose that the Gripen uses an American-designed engine, and sensors from various countries though, which is a significant difference.
Yes, there's international collaboration on the Gripen. In fact Britain is reportedly likely to block a sale to Argentina due to its involvement in the Gripen programme.
The para starting with "During October–December 1978" seems out of order given that it describes events while this was an international project
While this is chronologically out of order, I think the setup is justified since "Origins" deals with the background and multilateral projects, whereas information from "Design phase and prototype" onwards deals with France's own development of the fighter. This gives the readers a more consistent recounting of events, as they only have to shift their mental time-frame once, instead of multiple times if a chronological setup was used since there were different conflicting developments throughout the period of 1978–1985. Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain how the budget cuts affected the Rafale development program exactly? - it's not stated at present.
The 1994 budget for the Rafale was cut by some US$340 million. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess what I was asking is how the cuts slowed development: did they lead to fewer prototypes (and hence slower testing), smaller design teams, etc? Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Added info. about reduced order size and rising costs. Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
"The size constraints were eased by the introduction of the Charles de Gaulle, France's first nuclear-powered carrier, which was considerably larger than previous carriers, the Foch and Clemenceau" - this is a bit unclear: surely the Rafale was always designed to primarily operate from CdG, and vice-versa given that the other two carriers were at the end of their service lives during the development of the Rafale
I'm unsure as well. Perhaps I should remove the last clause altogether since I cannot find additional sources. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The first clause is my concern: Rafale was presumably never intended to operate from the old carriers (at least for long), and CdG was presumably always intended to operate aircraft of this type, if not the exact design. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find any other information than what was written in Williams 2002.
Replaced the word eased with offset, as eased implied that the size constraints were unintended and were only solved with the CdG's larger size. Perhaps the aircraft was engineered that way because the carrier was larger. Offset is a more appropriate word in this case. Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
"The service originally envisaged taking delivery of 250 Rafales, but this was initially revised downwards to 234 aircraft, made up of 95 "A" and 139 "B" models", and later to 212 aircraft. The Navy, meanwhile, had 60 Rafales on order, down from 86 due to budget cuts. Of the 60, 25 would be M single-seaters and 35 two-seat Ns. The two-seater has been cancelled" - when did these changes to the composition of the orders take place?
I couldn't find any mainstream sources. Besides, I think adding the years would complicate things further. Please respond if you object to my reply. Sp33dyphil (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"In November 2009 the French government ordered an additional 60 aircraft to take the total order for the French Air Force and Navy to 180. As of 2014, a total of 180 Rafales have been ordered by France" - the second sentence here seems repetitive
What's the timeframe for the Malaysian fighter replacement project?
Removed Malaysia section due to lack of widespread coverage. According to Defense Industry Daily, Dassault has not submitted a leasing offer to the Malaysian government. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you note why Singapore went with the F-15 rather than the Rafale? - Singapore's defence procurement processes are very well regarded internationally, and are considered to be quite influential as a result.
More generally, the coverage of the UAE procurement seems a bit under-developed that this has been quite a saga (at one stage it looked like the Rafale was locked in, only for this to fall apart)
Strange. I couldn't find any sources that said the UAE were close to buying the Rafale. Perhaps you could give me a link? Sp33dyphil (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, these articles refer: , , , and  (somewhat speculative!) I suspect that I read this in various Jane's publications, which are difficult to access unless you're a member of an institution with a subscription (which I no longer am, sadly). Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Can more be said about the attempt to sell Rafales to Morocco? This is noted earlier as having failed in part due to poor cooperation between the French government and Dassault, but what this involved isn't stated. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Support My comments are now sufficiently addressed - nice work. I'd suggest working on the remaining elements of the comments before any FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments. I've got the same concerns about your first paragraph as Nick does. The tone is wrong for FAC. It's fine to tell us what the company thinks about its fighter ... but only after you've described it as reliable sources would describe it. That's all I've got for now; copyediting comments would be premature. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the omnirole statement. Cheers, Sp33dyphil (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks fine now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
When deciding which articles to copyedit, I have to consider the odds that the article won't pass, and this article has only one support in 2.5 months. I'd like to see more activity here before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I see Nick suggests working on "the remaining elements of the comments before any FAC" ... and that sounds like something that should be done before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've addressed the three remaining issues. Cheers, Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've made a few edits, but I'm just not comfortable copyediting this. A lot of the material is new to me, and I know that reviewers at FAC are more demanding when articles concern current companies and their products. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
A couple of links to illustrate the point: WP:FA#Engineering and technology and WP:FA#Business, economics, and finance. Very few FACs on products, particularly big-ticket engineering products, have succeeded over the last 10 years. Milhist has had a little more success than most because ... hey, we're Milhist. But in general, reviewers and writers of these articles haven't seen eye-to-eye, and I'm just not sure how to copyedit across the cultural divide, or whether it's worth the time investment to try. Some phrases just in the lead section that you might or might not have problems with, in addition to the ones that reviewers perceive (or misperceive) as military jargon: "high level of agility", "air supremacy", "crucial advantages", and "planned to be introduced". WP:DATED is also cited much more (and applied unevenly) for these types of articles than for historical articles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dank: Thank you for your input. Please see below.
I agree with Dank's comments about the lead, and the article in general. In the lead, "high level of agility" is sourced from comments made by a French pilot and quoted in the Times of India (not exactly a third party reliable source, he's not going to talk it down is he?), and "crucial advantages" is not supported in the body of the article, all that is in the body of the article re: Libya is a mention of SPECTRA, which apparently allows it to operate without SEAD support. How that is a "crucial advantage" in any respect is not explained in the article. Both phrases lack neutrality as they stand, IMO. Things that are designed to do something are described as doing it, for example, SPECTRA. SPECTRA is designed to protect the aircraft, but does it? Nevertheless, it is described thus "which protects the aircraft...". The assumption that things that are designed to do something actually do it is a big call unless proven in combat. If proven in combat, there should be some third party confirmation of the performance.
While I appreciate that this article has taken a lot of time to develop, there is a lot of work involved in reviewing it, over 200 citations to check, and several obvious prose issues that immediately come to attention. I am also a bit concerned about giving a 7K word article my time when it appears to have neutrality issues from the get-go. I suggest the nominator takes these issues on board and rectifies them, otherwise it seems unlikely that it will be successful. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Despite gathering two supports, it appears that this article contains several prose issues, which I do not necessarily entirely agree with. The ongoing sales development with India and Canada means that it'll be difficult to update and maintain this article. Although I don't intend to see the ACR fail, it is apparent that the article needs some work. Unless an editor thinks that these problems are relatively minor and can quickly be rectified, a fail I think would be appropriate for this review. Sp33dyphil (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.