Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HAL HF-73

The following discussion 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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HAL HF-73[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Echo1Charlie (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because, this article is not rated yet and believe it comply with the criteria Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal This might be a B-class article, but they're assessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. It's too short for A-class. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I referred to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/A-Class) criteria, there's no mention about length of the article.

See criterion A2 Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've read that, the article is comprehensive and no detail is left. -Echo1Charlie (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have the following comments/suggestions, but overall I am in agreeance that this is not at the moment a broad enough topic to be considered for A-class. I don't mean to dampen your enthusiasm, but that is how I see it. It is, of course, just an opinion. Other reviewers may, of course, disagree. Anyway, I offer the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the lead says it was a strike fighter, but the infobox says air interdictor and a strike fighter -- please make this consistent
the lead should mention that the project was cancelled and how many prototypes existed
add relevant years to the lead to provide some more context
the article needs a copy edit, for instance here are a few issues (not exhaustive):
- "the HAL" --> remove the definite article
- "meet the Air Staff Requirements (ASR) of the Indian Air Force (IAF) for an attack aircraft": what did these stipulate?
- this sentence isn't grammatically correct: "critical stage of take off, resulted in the rapid loss"
- this is awkwardly worded: "During the time period from 1966 to 1970..."
- "the IAF had issued an ASR": "had" isn't necessary here
- "the HAL and the MBB of Germany had entered": as above
- "a joint venture programme called Hindustan Fighter - Experimental (HF-X)" --> "the joint Hindustan Fighter - Experimental (HF-X) programme"
- "engine wasn't materialized due to various reasons"
ref 2, Web Archive isn't the correct publisher -- list the original publisher, and then use the "|via=" function in the cite web template for the Web Archive annotation
ref 5, add title case capitalisation and a page number
ref 7, remove YoungBites from the title as it is duplicated in the work/website
what makes refs 1, 2, 3 and 7 reliable per WP:RS?
I would suggest that the main problem here is that it seems incomplete (whether that is actually the case or not) as it has only a single section -- for instance, could you potentially add a proposed specifications section and an operational history section? For instance, see another article on a proposed aircraft that didn't go into production: CAC CA-15
split the paragraph in the HF-X programme section
"wasn't" -- probably best to avoid contractions in formal writing
remove the duplicate link for the RB199
currently the article is only in one category -- are there any others that are relevant?
potentially taking this to peer review might help gain some ideas for expansion

– I'm not a native English speaker, sorry for the grammar mistakes, I'll try to correct it as soon as possible. Thank you for your valuable suggestions. -Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment -- Although I can see that the nominator has made the effort to improve the article since Rupert's comments, there's been no activity at this review for a month and no support for promotion to A-Class. I therefore plan to close the review and suggest that GAN might be a more appropriate venue for this subject (along with PR, before or after that). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.