Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Defence Academy alumni/archive1


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

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC).

List of National Defence Academy alumni

 * Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. The list has recently passed an A-class review from Military history project. Each and every alumni have been referenced with reliable sources. Also the prose content in the lead and individual sections were referenced. The list also holds considerable importance in the scope of WikiProject India as National Defence Academy is of top importance. The list is comprehensive enough to be promoted to FL. Please suggest any improvements required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The sub-sections of this list are quite complicated and not easy to surf. Currently they are divided as Chief of Staffs (A, N, A), Wartime Award Recipients (PVC, MVC, VC), Peacetime award recipients (AC, KC, SC). Can this be revamped to simple three sections as Army, Navy and Air Force? I know it's a lot of work but we would bring down 10 lists to just 3. Opinions of others are welcome on this point. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * More section doesn't mean that the list loses its eligibility. Even if divide per the services, how do we differentiate between the chiefs, awardees (peacetime and wartime, each category has one to two awards with the awardee names), sub-section will also be needed then. If we go down with a single list for each service, then it would complicated to find out a specific subject. Anyway, let the community decide. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Winning an award or being appointed on a certain position is not a qualifying factor. After finishing their studies in NDA, what field they joined in or not joined at all should be the more relevant factor of sorting out these people. All the posts they held or awards they received can always go in notes section against each entry. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But the list is based the notable alumni only. That's what I am saying, it would complicate to find a subject. I think the present structure will be clearer than the one proposed. I ping and  to look over this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All "lists of alumni" are always the "list of notable alumni". We do not include names of all students that have ever enrolled in. Check alumni lists like that of Washington & Jefferson College and University of Central Florida which are generic institutes where the alumni's are sub-listed per the field they went into. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But this is for one single profession. Let us wait for some other to fall in. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't count Army, Navy And Air Force as same professions. Waiting and more opinions are good. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I was pinged for my opinion- personally, I don't find the list confusing to navigate. I think that you could change it into three sections (army, navy, air force), but I'm not sure that you could combine everything in a section into one table, without abusing the "notes" column pretty severely to get the chiefs of staff to sort together and the peacetime award recipients to sort together, etc. It would be a lot of work. Also, checking other example FLs, they're not using that single-table format: List of United States Air Force Academy alumni, for example, is basically the "air force" section of this list, but then subdivides all the types of notable alumni into sections. Following that, you'd have to split this list into the three sections, and then have multiple subsections for each- at least 3 (chiefs of staff, wartime awards, peacetime awards). I don't think it would be much benefit, if any, for the work. -- Pres N  17:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Another advantage of 3 list proposal would be that no two entries will be listed twice (unless someone in rarest case joins both Army and Navy or such). In this format, S. K. Kaul is listed twice. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

But that is the only case. If needed it can be fixed up with the higher order i.e. at Chief of Air Staff. And as PresN said we couldn't combine everything in a section into one table, without abusing the "notes" column. And also it wouldn't benefit much. You need to have separate sections for chiefs, war and peace time awardees. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 08:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why we need to have award-winners and non-award winners separated out. People took admission here, either went into one of three fields or simply contributed to "other fields". That should be the end of categorization as is concerned with this institute's alumni list. How successful they were by grabbing awards or securing positions is immaterial to the alumni list. That's just peacock-y for the institute maybe to highlight the achievements on their website but is of no encyclopedic value much. Take for example following lists with their subsections like filmographies (feature films, documentaries, plays, tv shows, advertisements, webseries, etc.); literary works (novels, short stories, poems, screenplays, etc.); awards (Academy, Emmy, Nobel, Padma, etc.).... Filmographies are not subsectioned as award winning and flops; literary works are not subsectioned as adapted-into-films and non-adapted-into-films; awards are not subsectioned as for acting, for writing, or such.... They all seem to follow a proper categorization which is missing here. This should be my last comment on this point and if that isn't sufficient enough to hit the point then I give up for this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that Nick-D and PresN have made clear that the present format is acceptable. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Nick-D
 * The article seems miss-titled: this is a list of notable graduates, not all graduates of this institution.
 * All the alumni pages are about notable graduates. I think there is no need to mention that specifically. For examples, see the MILHIS Fls on alumni of institutions.


 * How many graduates have there been in total? (a point in time figure would be OK for giving readers a feel for this if nothing very recent is available)
 * Added.


 * How large and exclusive is this institution? Is it like the Australian Defence Force Academy, which is attended by the great majority of people who go on to become officers in the Australian Defence Force, or is it highly selective? - this is needed to help readers understand why the subject of this list is important.
 * Yes it the same way.
 * The article lists graduates who are notable for being successful. Surely some graduates have also achieved notability for failures? (eg, graduates convicted of prominent crimes, commanders of highly unsuccessful operations, individuals who unsuccessfully ran for election, etc).
 * No such cases of crime have been reported till date, that are notable enough to have an article on wiki.

Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet the article includes individuals who received awards which were not sufficient for them to be considered individually non-notable. I don't accept that none of this academy's graduates have become prominent for negative reasons: such a claim certainly wouldn't be correct for Australia's much smaller and newer equivalent. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your stand on Dharmadhyaksha's opinion of reorganizing the list? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that it seems that a very high proportion of Indian officers go through this Academy, the fact that a small sub-set go onto high ranks or are awarded high-level awards isn't surprising: this is exactly the background you'd expect for such people. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Any other comments? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What is your stand on Dharmadhyaksha's opinion of reorganizing the list? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support List is exhaustively sourced to RS; a W3C check shows all links are current (there were several false positives but those were resolved by a manual check). List is lavishly illustrated and all images have alt tags and proper licensing. Earwig indicates probability of copyvio is Unlikely (15.3%). I had to double-check the claim of it being the world's first tri-service academy as I thought that was the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy, however, it appears that was only an Army-Navy program so looks good. I am inclined to second the suggestions of others that the list should be observe this is a "List of Notable ..." since it's not a total list, however, Dharmadhyaksha has made the point that all lists of alumni are always lists of notable alumni. Organization is clear and logical and I was unable to find incidences of grammar or MOS errors, though neither of these are my strong suit so I largely relied on the prior reviews of others. The article is very stable with no unresolved discussion on the Talk page and little editing occurring recently other than the nominator and bots. The lede meets the criteria of WP:LEDE and prose and comprehensiveness seem good. All in all I support this as a FL. Very nice job, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. LavaBaron (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Following comments are pertaining to List of National Defence Academy alumni subsection:
 * Notes field of Laxminarayan Ramdas states that he:
 * was 13th CNS, but the 13th bit is unsourced. So, please add a relevant source.
 * won Ramon Magsaysay Award, which is again unsourced, for which you can provide this source.


 * Ref 53 is a user-generated source, which is written by a user named "Webmaster 1". In fact, it isn't serving any purpose in the list. So, please remove it.
 * Notes field of Vishnu Bhagwat states that he was 15th CNS, but the 15th is unsourced.
 * Ref 15 states that Sushil Kumar won UYSM, but his Awards field doesn't mention that.
 * Notes field of Sushil Kumar mentions that he was 16th CNS, but 16th bit is unsourced.
 * Notes field of Madhvendra Singh mentions that he was 17th CNS, but 17th bit is unsourced.
 * Notes field of Arun Prakash mentions that he was 18th CNS, but 18th bit is unsourced, for which you can cite this source.
 * Notes field of Sureesh Mehta mentions that he was 19th CNS, but 19th bit is unsourced, for which you can cite this source.
 * Ref 64 & ref 65 are redundant as other refs are covering the content. So, remove them.
 * Ref 66 isn't showing the relevant details. So, please add its archived version, i.e. this one or this one.
 * Ref 68 is redundant, as other refs are covering the content. So, remove it. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

these comments have been here for over a week, are you continuing with this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, I got a bit busy, will address them within a couple of days. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All done, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , with your latest edits, you replaced 13/14/15/16/17/18/19th CNS with 'Former CNS'. I have already provided sources for 18th/19th CNS in my previous comments. So, at least use them. Anyway, tomorrow I will properly look into your latest changes & the subsequent sections. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I just glanced at the next subsection, i.e. Chiefs of the Air Staff. The '15th'/'16th'/'17th' bit in the Notes field are unsourced. So, please add relevant sources. Ref 81 mentions that Pradeep Vasant Naik was 19th CAS while the Notes field mentions that he was 22nd. So, please correct it. And don't worry about my previous comments. I will cap them in a day or two. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually there is an issue regarding the Chiefs of the Air Staff, some consider from independence of India (1947) and some from the year the post of re-designated (1955). To avoid confusion I have replaced with former. Any other concerns? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , the designations in question – Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), Chief of the Naval Staff (CNS), & Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) – were introduced by The Commanders-In-Chief (Change in Designation) Act, 1955. Obviously the government of India and all other reliable sources count them from 1955. So, there's no confusion regarding that. Still you can mention that fact in a footnote if you like. BTW, in the present case, the title of the subsection is Chiefs of the Air Staff, which makes it clear that all of the entries were CAS in the past. Therefore, mentioning them as Former CAS in the Notes column is reduntant. Same is true regarding the previous subsection. So, I would encourage you to find relevant sources, rather than using the redundant Former bit.
 * PS: I will be shifting to a new location tomorrow. And I guess it will take few days before I log in again. So, please try to resolve other users' comments in that time. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What would you clearly suggest me now? What are the changes that I need to make? This is going way too long, list them all. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Delegate note: this nomination is getting close to being closed for being stalled; see if there's any way you can get some more supports or comments soon. -- Pres N  00:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Close this nom for now, I am hands full. May be some other time. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.