Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Navy/archive2

Indian Navy
This is the request for second review.The first one is is archieved. Featured article candidates/Indian Navy/archive1 Chanakyathegreat 03:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Object refer to Peer Review per above. It could develop into a FA but is not one now. Hello32020 20:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Note: this comment was made here because the original FAC nomination was archived late.  Pagra shtak  17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - references should be linked to more than just webpages. From the footnotes, no reference books appear to have been used writing this article at all. Suggest Peer Review and much improvement (including to history section) as per other comments. Buckshot06 07:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Object: insufficient lead; fair use images have rather weak rationales (some are replaceable); section headers use proper caps, contrary to WP:MOS; footnotes belong after punctuation, not before; stand-alone years should not be linked; references need to be formatted ( makes this easier). I picked a section at random (Weapon Systems) to check the prose. After I found problems in the first five sentences, I stopped: The Indian Navy uses the most latest technology... (most latest?), Some of this systems... (this systems?), Others like the BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles are jointly developed with Russia (missing commas), The Navy has got the Lakshya PTA[34]. (has got? choppy.), There has been reports... (reports has?). Also, this section has "Submarine-based missiles" as an entire paragraph, not sure what happened there. I suggest peer review and trying for GA as your first goal.  Pagra shtak  17:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User Gimmetrow corrected footnotes and puts them after punctuation. Lead section expanded after correction. Section for Books added in reference section(need expansion). corrected the weapon system section. Looking for more errors. Chanakyathegreat 03:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of good content here, but I think the article could benefit from a copy-edit by a third party. In the last FAC someone said "Navy's not Navies" but I don't think this meant the entire article. Generally "Navy's" is a possessive (The Navy's headquarters) and "navies" is a plural (the many navies of the world). I just fixed quite a few similar apostrophe-s constructions where it seemed a plural was intended. Gimmetrow 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please convert to Cite.php. You don't want to think about doing this when your article has over 80 footnotes. Trust me.--Rmky87 23:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)