Talk:Chengdu J-20/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 10:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   "twinjet, all-weather, stealth fifth-generation" - four wikilinks in a row is a bit much. Consider rewording somehow.

   Are the citations in the lead really necessary? See WP:LEAD.

   The development section needs reworking. Merge most of the single/double sentence paragraphs in together to form a bit more of a narrative rather than a bullet point style list of updates.

   LRIP needs to be unnabreviated in its first appearance in the Development section. It then needs to be abbreviated only in the Production section.

   "The main weapon bay is capable of housing both short ..." - this one sentence paragraph appears to be unreferenced. Incidentally you should merge it with the one sentence paragraph below it. Also does this aircraft not feature some kind of cannons? I note the armament section at Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, a good article, is significantly larger than the armament section at this article.

   Try and merge the one-sentence paragraphs in the 'Engines' section.

   Saturn AL-31#117S - I really don't think this is how this link should be displayed. Can you pipe it to something better?

   The dates seem too specific in the 'Flight testing' section. Do we really need to know the first test was on 11 January 2011? Why not just January 2011? This wouldn't be a problem if the entire section wasn't jammed packed with specific dates. Actually the dates seem too specific overall. In the 'Development' section we have "On 22 December 2010, the first J-20 prototype underwent high speed ..." - I'd shorten this to just December 2010, and repeat the process for the whole article unless it is of particular importance to mention the exact day,

   "This particular aircraft, numbered '2011' ..." - This sentence and the one after it are unreferenced.

   "took to the sky" - this seems a bit too colloquial to me, but up to you

   "At least six J-20s are in active service" - as of when?

   "On 9 March 2017, Chinese officials confirmed that the J-20 had entered service in the Chinese air force." - unreferenced

   Single sentence paragraphs in the Deployment section could use some merging.

   "that China needs proper training for J-20 fighter to ensure its air domination over India on "Tibet Plateau" - please try and reword this, it reads poorly

   "Western analysts clarified that the training took part" - define Western

   "and Pakistan shares strong interest in acquire hardware and software assistance from China regarding the technologies involving fifth-generation fighters. Though unconfirmed, Several Chinese media published this news in the form of embrave" - the English here is quite poor too. I'm starting to think this whole article may need a copyedit before it could be considered for promotion.

   "Robert Gates downplayed the significance of the aircraft" - when did this happen?

   "More recent speculations" - see WP:REALTIME

   "The J-20 could threaten vulnerable tankers and ISR/C2 platforms, depriving Washington of radar coverage and strike range" - according to whom?

   There's an unsigned comment on the article's talk page raising questions about the accuracy of the fuel tank specifications. Normally I wouldn't give a complaint such as this much weight but when I compare the fuel capacity of this aircraft to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor I'm seeing some drastic differences. Are you absolutely certain the fuel capacity specifications are accurate?

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Checklinks finds an awful lot of problems that need fixing: [1]

   Copyright detection finds some pretty major problems as well: [2]

   There's several bare URLs, and at least one violation of MOS:ALLCAPS.

   There's several violations of WP:OVERCITE. Unless a citation is particularly controversial or likely to be challenges, you shouldn't need more than three sources, if that. We've got a few instances of four and at least on of six. Freikorp (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

   There's an overwhelming amount of inconsistency in the references. Dates formatted in the "11 January 2011" format, others in "2017-03-10" format. Some works are given by their common name (I.e Fox News), while others are given by their base url (I.e baidu.com). I could go on but I'll leave it here for now.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   As noted above

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Looks OK in general in regards to these points, though as noted above the size of the armament section is small in comparison to others; if all other issues are addressed I may ask for a second opinion on this

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Placing on hold. To be honest I'll be surprised if these issues can all be addressed in one week, but best of luck. Freikorp (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

   @L293D: Just a reminder we're now about half-way to the point where this will be closed; I note no changes have yet been made to the article. Let me know if you're not intending to address the issues in which case I'll close it now otherwise I'll leave it open for the next 3-4 days to allow you to work on it. Freikorp (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I'll start right now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

A handful of positive changes have been made to the article, and accordingly I've struck some of my original concerns. The overwhelming majority of concerns, however, still remain. I didn't think one week would be long enough to address this amount of issues even if a concerted daily effort had of been made. Unfortunately I'm going to have to close this now, but you've at least got some idea of what needs to be addressed before it is renominated and can work on the issues at your leisure. Freikorp (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)