Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I’ll use the GA criteria and give my reasons for why I don’t think this article qualifies in the respective criteria.

Well written

• In terms of the grammar and manual of style, it’s passable, though I think many sections are in need of a copy-edit.

Verifiable with no original research

• Here is where some issues start emerging. Wikipedia values verifiability, but not all sources are equally accurate, and in an article covering technical subjects such as an aircraft, mistakes from less reliable sources are quite apparent. For instance:
  • Until it’s recent removal, the article used a rate of climb figure from two other tertiary news-collecting sources (militaryfactory and deagel).
  • A good number of references come from TASS, which while acceptable for reflecting on the position of the Russia state such as signing of contracts, are questionable when used to cite some outlandish claims such as “sixth generation” capabilities.
  • There are also 6 “citation needed” tags, even more before I began revamping the article.

Broad in its coverage

• The article goes into some unnecessary detail, with the procurement and potential operators section reading like a chronological collection of news articles. The avionics section in particular has a paragraph about consumer Elbrus processors that serve no purpose. Plenty of sentences in the article that just quotes the statement of an official. The design section in particular goes well beyond summary style.

Neutral

• As mentioned earlier, some state-owned references like TASS are obvious issues when it comes to reliability, since some parts of the article takes their claims at face value, such as the stealth and armaments and Syrian deployment section. Some of the overtly negative news articles can also be removed.

Stable

• I’ve had to massively revamp the article, adding in notable information in the origins and testing & trials sections that should have been there much earlier.

Illustrated

• The amount of media is acceptable, although I find having a gallery of every sensor to be excessive.

Overall, I don’t think this article meets the GA criteria for the reasons listed above. Certainly I can fix them, and I have already worked through most of the Origins, Overview, and Flight Test and Trials sections. But the remaining work will be a rather involved and lengthy process that will result in an article quite different from what it currently is.

Until that is done I think it should be de-listed. If there is a consensus from the WP:Aviation community about this, then I can go forward with this.

Steve7c8 (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some major revisions to the article, and I think the quality is much better than it was before. That said, a new book on the Su-57 by Yefim Gordon is coming out in December, and I would like to read that book to see what other important pieces of information can be added before submitting this article for quality reassessment. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]