# Talk:Trichy assault rifle

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trichy assault rifle/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Ominae (talk · contribs) 03:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: MWFwiki (talk · contribs) 00:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)


### MWFwiki's GA review
I will be reviewing this shortly (within 24-48hrs). For transparency, this article has previously quick failed a GA review. The article, at quick glance, seems to have improved greatly in the prose department, with just some minor tweaks that I would make. MWFwiki (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll comment to just say my thanks. Ominae (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Okay, Ominae, the article is looking a good deal better than the first review. I just have a few corrections I'd like to see made before I do a "formal" review:
I re-wrote several parts of the lead. Just some minor re-wording... things that I felt that it would be easier for me to fix than to point them out to you. I will likely do the same for the body during my "full" review.
So, one of the first issues is MOS:LEADCITE. Essentially, you should not have references in the lead if the context is later mentioned in the body. The references should be in the body. If it is only mentioned in the lead, then the citation is acceptable.
You have a lot of acronyms after agency/entity names. If the acronym is not used later in the article, it's not needed at all. That is to say; Simply because an entity has an acronym, it need not be mentioned unless there is a reason for it.
Oh, almost forgot; In the lead, there's mention of the "Atmanirbhar Bharat" policy. I italicized it, but I'm not sure if it should be or not. Review MOS:NONENGITALICS and decide what you think is best.
Please review and correct these items, and I will conduct the formal review. Thanks! MWFwiki (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi. I took care of the concerns in the lead, except for one. I took care of removing the italic; I think it's not needed after reading the page on italics.
For acronym, I'm thinking of mostly leaving "TAR". For the others (with some exceptions), I can start to remove those acronyms that aren't used a lot/used at least once. Let me know if I missed a spot. Ominae (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
@Ominae; Yeah, you can definitely leave "TAR," and any other acronym that is utilized at least one other time in the article (apart from the initial mention).
Otherwise, the only remaining issue is MOS:INFOBOXCITE. Generally, you need not add citations to the infobox (even in a dedicated "references" section) if the information and citation is covered/used in the article body. So, for instance, citations "1" and "2" could be removed from the infobox as this info is covered in the body.
Alternatively, you could , under the "design" section, create a "specifications" sub-section. I would likely consolidate the "ammunition" sub-section into this hypothetical sub-section. Here, you can list-off many of the attributes of the weapon (be sure to identify which variant the specifications are referring to) — even if it repeats much of the infobox's information (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states "[...]an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored.") — and then you can move the sources currently in the infobox to below all that. As an example, see how I did the "specifications" section of the AIM-174B missile. Again, this is optional; at the very least, just make it INFOBOXCITE-compliant. EDIT: I almost forgot! Do you know when OFT ceased manufacturing? The current "now manufactured by AWEIL" verbiage is awkward. If you can get an exact year that would be perfect. If not, no worries. EDIT 2: What is the name? "Trichy assault rifle?" Or "Trichy Assault Rifle?" The article uses both. MWFwiki (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
 GA on hold as of 10 Novemeber, retroactive to 6 November. GA nomination will be quick-failed if no response or improvements are made by 13 November 2025. MWFwiki (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi. Had a look again after you asked about AWEIL. I think I made a mistake that OFT is dead, which is not the case. My bad, I'm fixing that. For the infobox citations, I'll see about "spreading" them to other parts of the article.
For the "Trichy assault rifle" Or "Trichy Assault Rifle" thing, it's the former. I'll go take a look and make sure it's consistent. But I use the former since it's a common noun. I did use "Trichy Assault Rifle" in the variant section as a name.
I'm doing the other fixes as mentioned. Ominae (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks, just reply here when you're done MWFwiki (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
It's mostly done. Let me know if I did (still) miss something. Ominae (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I am happy to pass this. I hope to see more of your work. That being said, if you plan on putting this up for an FA, and/or have some time on your hands, I would fix several of the sources:
https://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com/2019/01/31/a-new-ak-47-clone-has-come-out-of-india/ (Likely not reliable; no official RfC on it, but a discussion on a "cousin" website found that site to be unreliable)
https://ddpdoo.gov.in/unit/pages/OFT/history10 (Dead?)
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-14/nagpur/30627285_1_ak-47-insas-new-rifle (Dead?)
https://ofb.gov.in/unit/pages/OFT/7-62x39mm-tar (Dead?)
Lastly, my only concern is that the article relies heavily on 2-3 Indian news outlets which, while not unreliable, have been found to use biased/nationalistic language and have occasionally written paid pieces. I would strongly encourage finding and adding more ostensibly neutral sources, especially if you plan on putting this up for FA-status. I'd additionally recommend adding retrieval dates, publish dates, and archival URLs/dates to sources. MWFwiki (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
For Indian-based sources, they're the only ones that I can find, so my hands are tied on that. Have not seen anyone else (outside India) write about it. But for most of the sites you mention that are dead, there is an archived version of them in the article. They can be accessed. Regarding publish/access/retrieved dates, I've added them to the sources, but I will check to see if I missed anything out.
Will see about FA if I feel like up to it. Otherwise, I'll see if the said sources you mention that may need to be changed can be swapped out based on what it says here for reference. So far, it seems fine. Ominae (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)