Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen/GA2

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

JAS (as it is best known in Sweden) has been marred by controversy since the 1980s. Several of the crashes have been widely publicized, particularly the 1993 crash at the Stockholm Water Festival. It is by most Swedes considered an iconic event of the 1990s. Since then, there have been bribery scandals involving Saab and JAS sales to other countries that have made major headlines. Most recently, there have been considerable journalistic coverage of the indictment of Austrian lobbyist Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly who escaped conviction by the skin of his teeth.

The article is pretty much devoid of any information about any of the political aspects of the project focuses almost entirely on technical aspects. I don't see that the article fulfills the criteria regarding either neutrality or coverage at the moment.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, The usual procedure is to decide whether an article is compliant or not with WP:WIAGA; and if it is not state why it is non-compliant and what needs to be done to bring it up to standard. In a sense that is what you seem to be trying to do. For example: possibly your comment "I don't see that the article fulfills the criteria regarding either neutrality or coverage at the moment." is suggesting that you regard it as non-compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 3(a) "Broad in its coverage" by its failure to include these topics. However, I'm not sure that you are on strong grounds in respect of clause 4 "Neutral"; I'd go somewhat further and add some concerns that neutrality is possibly being compromised by what you appear to be stating should be included. This is not my topic, so I can only use your words (above). You seem to asking for undue weight to be given to (mostly but not all) newspaper claims of "bribery", you specifically state "Most recently, there have been considerable journalistic coverage of the indictment of Austrian lobbyist Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly who escaped conviction by the skin of his teeth.". Writing that in a neutral manner, that statement should be: "... Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly was found not guilty". If your requirement is that the statement "... Austrian lobbyist Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly who escaped conviction by the skin of his teeth." be included then that is certainly not a neutral statement. As far as I can see, no one has been found guilty in a court of law. Another sources seems to be wikileaks (but not named as such): I would not regard these as WP:RS. I might to wrong (totally wrong), but the message coming out of the GAR is this are is not a GA-class article because it does not include sensationalist material that was written to sell newspapers. Pyrotec (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a very quick read of the article, I'd be inclined to state that the Lead does not appear to be compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 1(b) and WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, could you give me more detailed feedback/criticism of the lead? I've just done a heavy re-writing of it; chucking some of the minor details of the armaments out while adding organizational and developmental aspects, including Gripen International and Gripen NG; I think it's an improvement. Kyteto (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not before the weekend comming. Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by reviewer If you're worried about my neutrality, why not actually do some research yourself? I'm going by how this has actually been reported, not by what I believe in personally. Mensdorff-Pouilly was acquitted of bribery formally, but was at the same times openly chastised by the presiding judge who said "This is not a clean bill of health. The whole thing stinks, but not enough [to convict]."[1][2][3][4] And he was actually convicted for falsifying evidence. That's not a normal acquittal and it hasn't been reported as one.

The article still doesn't contain an accurate summary of how the project came about. For example, it fails to note that the entire left wing, including the Social Democrats, of the Riksdag voted against the project. The project was pushed through the Riksdag with a tiny five-vote marginal. During the floor debate, Olof Palme described it as something that "smacks of a coup, and is a serious democratic setback". There's nothing about the controversial and unrealistic fixed price contract, nor the cost overruns. The €1.84 billion for R&D stated in the current version of the article doesn't even come close to the estimated 132 billion kronor in total expenses (minus weapons) reported in Swedish media.[5] I don't know the cost issues in detail, but I've heard of even higher estimates, some of them even running up to 200 billion kronor.

In essence, highly significant, notable and influential political controversies in Sweden are absent and the entire development phase is presented as fairly uneventful, despite being anything but. Neither 3(a) nor 4 are fulfilled in my view.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite concerned about the latest posts[6] by Kyteto at the article talkpage. I sense a lot of hostility and there seems to be constant assumptions of bad faith.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances and the manner of this GAR review, what do you expect? Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting I am acting in bad faith?

Peter ^Isotalo 20:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given that you chose to take a talkpage quote of mine and present it as something I'd actually want to include in article space, it seems you aren't actually assuming good faith. Why on earth would you make such an overtly belligerent comment rather than replying to my clarification about the factual issues?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reviewing this article, but yes I do have concerns. Firstly, in the light of new information given above, a neutral encyclopaedic statement might be: "Mensdorff-Pouilly was acquitted of bribery, but was convicted for falsifying evidence and was heavily criticised by the judge" (or words to that effect); and whatever words are used must be fully verifiable by citation(s). Putting and/or making statements such as "... who escaped conviction by the skin of his teeth" in respect of living people is the type of comment that sometimes leads to legal action for liable / slander (this web site is in effect US based) and is not going to be acceptable to wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). Secondly, it's not clear whether the addition information given above on 24th June is amplification of what was stated here on 16th June to be missing from the article or whether it is "new material". By now there aught to be an unambiguous statement(s) in this review of why the article is regarded as non-compliant against WP:WIAGA and what needs to be done to make it compliant. Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got into an edit conflict as I was about to close the review (without delisting). The comment above makes the choice even more obvious.

This individual GAR is getting downright ridiculous. It's been studiously ignored by those actively involved in the article. By now it has evolved a parallel second review that is suggesting I'm biased and on coming close to violating US libel laws because of my talkpage comments.

Anyhew, closing the GAR.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you've closed this review. However, I did not use any comments on your talkpage. The comments about "....indictment of Austrian lobbyist Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly who escaped conviction by the skin of his teeth" came from this page (to be found in the final sentence of the first paragraph) and this is the formal review / reassessment page. Its not a talkpage. Pyrotec (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]