Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/INS Vikrant (R11)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2017.

INS Vikrant (R11)

 * Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the first aircraft carrier of the Indian Navy. Built by the United Kingdom, the ship was commissioned in 1961, and served until 1997. She played a decisive role in India's naval victory over Pakistan in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. The article has already passed an A-class review from Military history project. For reference, you can view the review on the talk page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Support I gave this article very close scrutiny during its recent Milhist A-Class review, which followed a GAN review by one of Milhist's naval specialists. I supported it at Milhist ACR after further improvements were made. I believe it now meets the FA criteria. It is great to see Indian naval subjects being given such attention. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments – really happy to see a warship like this brought to FAC. I've made several copyedits.
 * In the lead, there's only one sentence on the ship's service in the Indian Navy. Can that be expanded? (I recognize that there's not a lot out there, but it comes across as a hole)
 * Same for the article. Were there no deployments between 1971 and 1997?
 * Why was the ship decommissioned? I assume it was age-related, but were maintenance costs getting to high? Too much breaking down? Etc.
 * "" Do your sources have a reason why? I assume it was because Britain didn't need them and was in something of a financial crisis in the post-war period? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits and the review. I've added a sentence to the lead and I think nothing much can be added. Because it covers all the sections now. Between 1971 and 1997 the ship had seen only general service with no specific deployments. Regarding the 2nd and 3rd points, what you are correct, but we don't have any sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to ping you out of the blue. Do you have any sources for the third point above? what is "general service"? Can we pin that down? Were there any notable voyages? Did the ship ever sail with the later Viraat? Things like that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've got two sources that deal with this briefly. The Brits were broke, as you surmised, and the Majestics were surplus to requirements as more, and larger carriers were on order. Hobbs, p. 199 He also mentions a serious fire aboard Vikrant in 1994 and that the ship's catapult was removed in 1987 as part of the refit. p. 203
 * Friedman says that the Majestics could not be modernized to meet the new 30,000-lb landing weight expected for the new and heavier jet aircraft and that the available hull space was insufficient for the desired 200,000 Imp gal of petrol and kerosene. Pages 232–33 in cheers Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks both you. Sturm, especially you for the input. I'll work on this ASAP. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've supported! Can't do much if the sources aren't out there, I empathize. Thank you for checking and adding what you could. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "(5–10 mi (8.0–16.1 km))": Avoid nested parentheses.
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for edits. Fixed the parentheses. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need source and image reviews. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't have the time to do a full source review; perhaps I will in a few days. Off the top of my head, though, there are serious questions about the reliability of globalsecurity.org and of books on demand as a publisher. They do not seem to be used for absolutely critical information, so perhaps they can be replaced without too much trouble; or at the very least, investigated to establish their credibility for this information. Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, replaced the sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

 * Most of the image sources/licences look alright (if all those photos were really created by the Indian navy), but there are some issues with other images. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This one needs an OTRS permission:
 * The author info on this one seems dubious: The Flickr user has uploaded several historical photos that he hardly took himself, including of WW2 Nazis: Seems he may only have scanned these photos, and therefore does now own the rights.
 * The last two images in the article should have their pixel size forcing removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Fixed the issues. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I tagged the one that needed confirmed permission, it may get deleted if no one obtains it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

 * I'm confused about the Hobbs 2012 source. I found this 2013 source called "British aircraft carriers : design, development and service histories" written by David Hobbs, but the ISBN doesn't match your source (nor does the year). On the other hand, the ISBN does match this 2010 book called "British aircraft carriers 1939-45" written by 	Angus Konstam and Tony Bryan. The Konstam/Bryan book is published by Osprey and the Hobbs book is published by Seaforth, neither of which match the publisher you list -- Bloomsbury.
 * Fixed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is uboat.net a reliable source?
 * Yes, it is. It has been accepted as RS by the Military history project, and has been used in many featured articles and lists for example, List of destroyers of India. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fn 49 times out when I try to access it -- could be just a temporary issue with the site. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, that all looks to be in order now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As the source and image reviews are now complete, I ping the coordinator in this context. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.