Talk:EL/M-2080 Green Pine/GA1

GA Review

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):

   The prose may be a bit too terse.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Referencing seem OK Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article is too short.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Possibly some promotive language.

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):

   Only one image (in the infobox). The "external-media" template doesn't look nice.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold awaiting improvements and expansion.

The article is quite well-written and covers the main points. The main problem is that the article is too short. Some suggestions on what to add:

• The first chapter should mention why it was decided to develop the system and for what purpose.
  

 Done Flayer (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Explain what makes this radar special. How is it better than earlier radars, etc.?
  

 Done Flayer (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• The article should explain how the system has been marketed abroad.
  

 Done There is no available data about this issue. Flayer (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• How big was the development budget and how much does the radar cost?
  

 Done No data about the development budget of the radar itself. Flayer (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Some other issues:

• Remove the quotation marks from names. Instead of "Green Pine", use either Green Pine or Green Pine.
  

 Done Flayer (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• The infobox says Power: Unspecified, though very high - very high compared to what? What does it mean?
  

 Done Flayer (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Its deployment at a new operational site takes "less than 24 hours." - Is this a generally accepted view? If not, it should read "according to its developer", since the source for this info is a developer publication.
  

 Done Flayer (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Remove the "external media" template. Replace it with the picture that is uploaded to wikimedia, and put a link to the other picture in the "external links" section.
  

 Done Flayer (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Try to improve the prose by making it less terse.
  

 Done Flayer (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm putting this on hold awaiting improvements and expansion. Reviewer: Offliner (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I did some changes, trying to avoid sinking in unnecessary details and original research. This article is inspired by Arrow (missile) A-class article, I pulled some more details from there. Flayer (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making the improvements. The article is now long enough, and I cannot find any significant problems. Just, what is this this template H:title? Not sure why you are using it. Offliner (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I removed the H:title template. Thank you! Flayer (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm still hesitating a bit because of the language. Its still quite terse and reads a bit too much like a technical manual. Since I'm not completely sure if this meets the GA criteria, I'm going to request a second opinion. I hope you will not mind the delay. Offliner (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think the article is well done, but the language is overly complex. For example, " The radar's cooling system is a heat exchanger that makes use of inherently redundant cascade cooling machines and incorporates an integral coolant tank and control panels." Is there any way to simply a sentence like this, or wikilink some words so that is more comprehensible to the average reader?

Also, " The system is transportable rather than mobile, as it can be moved to other prepared sites, but cannot be set up just anywhere." Can you be more specific? What are the limiting factors as to where it can be set up? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I wikilinked some more words now, but when I try to simplify/explain it I fall into original research. Flayer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• 2nd opinion: I made some copy-edits to improve the prose. I think the article passes muster. I recommend a pass. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

1. As the reviewer, Offliner, is now indefinitely blocked [1], I have taken over this review. I have re-read it checked the referencing , etc. and am happy that this passes muster, Pass GA Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)