Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of destroyers of India/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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC).

List of destroyers of India

 * Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. It is one of the most important lists in the scope of India. It provides all the information regarding the destroyers in service with the Indian Navy. Passes A-class review on 8 September 2016. Also addressed the tags placed by the copy-editor. The list is comprehensive with required images. Please voice your opinion, and thoughts that would help in getting the list featured. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support! Article has a great lead and the tables and images are fantastic. After a quick skimming I saw no glaring spelling or punctuation errors and it appears to be formatted correctly. Fritzmann2002 17:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you miss the opening sentence of the lead which started with "This is a list of ..." which has been removed from featured lists for, oh, about five years now? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please suggest me the correction,if any. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are some good examples of what a lead should be like at Featured lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please take a look. I removed the sentence. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been ten days, please have a look and reply with any improvements required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support heres some comments on what you may want to change:
 * "During the 1980s, India signed an agreement with the Soviet Union for five guided-missile destroyers." This leads into a talk about classes, are the classes mentioned after this the ones ordered? if not what classes were they?
 * "The Kolkata class (Project 15A) is a class of stealth guided missile destroyers." maybe reword it to guided missile destroyers with stealth technology?
 * "Kolkata class to incorporate even higher levels of technology (including modern stealth characteristics) and in May of that year, approval for the construction was given" Maybe improve technology not incorporate higher levels?
 * "The Indian Navy is planning to upgrade the propulsion of Rajput-class ships with an indigenously-developed Kaveri marine gas turbine (KMGT) engine." do we know when it is supposed to happen?
 * When these will be upgraded is unknown, as per the report they will as soon the engine is tested successfully. The same was mentioned in the following sentence.
 * "The Rajput-class destroyers, built in the Soviet Union, entered service during 1980s and are currently active.[4][5]" I feel like this shouldn't be part of the paragraph.

Thats the end of my suggestions. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support but however I have suggestions Rajput class sections table width can be increased and column heading height of Hunt class reduced?  Varun FEB2003    08:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done the first one. For Hunt class the column height can't be reduced as the information demands it and the information can't be removed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that but I have more suggestions. I am not at all expert (forget expert I am not even good enough to draw a pretty table) in tables but is it possible to keep a uniform table width for all tables? Column width for many columns like origin, commission date, displacement, fate can be reduced and those for armaments increased. The column width for pictures should be exactly equal to image width (maybe a pixel more) and image size should be same (visually). Probably a GOCE request will do more good! Thanks a lot  Varun FEB2003    12:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What you say is good, but it is not necessary. You are suggesting this in the view of the look so that all the tables look uniform throughout the article, and looks good. But this completely unnecessary as per Wikipedia guidelines. We must try to represent the information with valid citations but not keeping in the mind how the output looks. The GOCE request was already done by Miniapolis (Member GOCE hall of fame), I think she has taken care of all that. In this context, I would like to ping that she suggests some solution for this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay no problem I didn't see that!  Varun FEB2003    12:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I can't add anything to what I've already done; table syntax is not my specialty, and beyond the scope of the GOCE—whoever creates a table is expected to know how to format it in accordance with MOS:TABLE. We're good, but we haven't memorized the entire MOS :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  13:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Almost ready to promote, but a couple issues:
 * Tables need rowscopes (they have colscopes already)
 * Please explain, I can't get what you mean by rowscopes. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Taking the Kolkata table as an example: you see how, for each cell in the top row, there is a "scope=col"? You need a "scope=row" for each cell in the first column (i.e. the cell with the name of the ship) - so, "| INS Kolkata (D63)" would be "!scope="row"| INS Kolkata (D63)". Note that this bolds the name; if you hate that you can add a "style="font-weight:normal;"" after "row", but it's there because it honestly makes it stand out more. -- Pres N  04:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The Chennai has it's status as... a date? And one in the past, so if that was the commision date, it's no longer a future ship
 * Corrected Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The Visakhapatnam is listed as "launched in april", and yet still under construction? Shouldn't it be "pending commission" or something?
 * In naval terminology, launched doesn't mean that the ship is comepletely constructed. A ship is said to be laucned when it is first put into the water, that is the bottom part, mostly the hull is complete. There is lot of work to be done before it is commissioned, such as the armamemnt, engine, all the work and sea trials etc. For your reference here are the examples images of ships that were launched but not commissioned — File:Launching of INS Visakhapatnam - 3.JPG, File:Launching of INS Visakhapatnam - 4.JPG, File:വിക്രാന്ത്_02.jpg. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh, I (without knowledge) presumed that it would be such a pain to do construction on a floating ship that they wouldn't bother "launching" it until it was done; or do they take it back to dry dock after launching? I don't really know anything about ship construction. That does explain the gap between "launch" and "commission" - I figured that was for testing, not additional construction. -- Pres N  04:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the status of the Porbandar be under construction, not planned, as per the text?
 * No, the keel of the ship was not still laid, so it is still in planning phase. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess this is a milship thing; I don't understand how something could be under construction (e.g. planning is done, work is under way) but not "under construction". Mainly because the text clearly states that "Of the four Visakhapatnam-class ships, two (INS Visakhapatnam and INS Porbandar) are under construction"? And if something is being built, I don't see how the status of the keel makes a difference- if the plans are done, and the keel is being physically constructed, then how is it still "planned"? -- Pres N  04:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is actually Mormugao that was launched. Corrected the table and text. Thank you very much for catching this point. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, source review while I'm at it:
 * ref 1 should not be "www.oxforddictionaries.com" - the work's name is Oxford Dictionaries (regardless of the location of the article), and the publisher if added is Oxford University Press. This is a running problem in a lot of these refs- you frequently use the website address instead of the name of the work. E.g. GlobalSecurity.org, not www.globalsecurity.org, Indian Navy, not www.indiannavy.nic.in, etc.
 * Corrected Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You're going to need to justify the use of gb-navy-ww2.narod.ru; it really looks like some guys ship fansite. Actually, several of these look like that (globalsecurity.org, uboat.net) - does the MilHist project have an RS page I can use to verify against?
 * I have replaced the use of "gb-navy-ww2.narod.ru". But uboat.net is a reliable source, it is the most uded source vide Wiki thoughout the articles relating to World War II ships, perphaps it is only basic source available, the site confirms that they do verify the information provided, see this. Globalsecurity too is same case, see this, this and this. It is not a fan site, but presents the information collected and confirmed by experts. It is also widely used for defence related articles on Wiki. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I really don't want to be a jerk about this- I don't at all know what the MILHIST standards are for sourcing lists like these. But I'm really not fine with "a bunch of articles use this site" as a basis for if something is an RS. The uboat.net link you gave me just says which books they pull from- that doesn't tell me that they are an RS themselves. I can read a book and post on tumblr, but you couldn't cite me. The globalsecurity.org links- the first one just says "people wrote this because they cared", which, yeah; the second says they're not affiliated with any government; and the third is a list of names. None of them say that "everything on here is edited by credentialed experts". It's possible that it is! But the links you gave me don't say that. Honestly, though, this can't be the first FLC to use these sites if they're valid, just link me the page where people thought it was a good reference, or get someone else from MILHIST to validate it. Even the video games project has a page of reliable sources with links to the discussions where they were agreed upon; the milhist project is so over-coordinated that I can't image they don't. -- Pres N  04:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually the list has passed an A-class review from the project. However, I would like ping my most obliging editor from MILHIS who also happens to be project's lead coordinator —, and also , who is also a coordinator and an expert in the naval stuff, especially the naval bite related to World War I and II, to help me in sorting out this issue. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * One of the links is flagged as dead
 * Link removed Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

-- Pres N  00:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have addressed all your concerns except the first one, because I did not get what do you mean by row scopes. I will do that after you further elaborate. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All comments addressed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Rupert has also voted his support. He also mentioned that there is concern with Uboat [dot] net. Please have a look at the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, lists aren't my strong suit, and nor are naval topics, so apologies if I can't add much here. Anyway, I have the following observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the title seems pretty clunky to me, what was the reason behind moving it from "List of Indian Navy destroyers"?
 * in the lead: "with the Hunt-class INS Godavari[7] the last." Can you confirm what the citation is actually covering here? Is there a ref for Godavari actually being the last?
 * this looks like a forum site, so I would suggest replacing it as a ref:
 * I haven't noticed any major concerns with Helgason's work (Uboat.net) in the past, but as I said naval history isn't my area of expertise, so I will defer to others in this area (Parsecboy and Sturmvogel are probably best placed to offer an opinion here)
 * some of the tables do not appear to be fully referenced. For instance, in the Future ships section does ref 11 cover all the information in the table?
 * same as above for the laid down and commissioned dates in the Kolkata class table
 * similar issues with the other tables
 * The title is changed following the discussion at the MILHIS project's A-class review, per the standard naming of ship lists. Regarding you second concern I have added more references so that the de-commissioning dates can be known and Godavari becomes the last of them. Removed . Added up references to dates in the tables wherever found needed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the name, no worries, I see there is precedent for it. It just seems strange to me due to the repeated word "of". Anyway, continuing the review below. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * some of the statistics are a little hard on the eye, for instance "2 30 mm AK-630 rotary cannons" (there are a few instances, e.g. 2 16-cell VLS etc). Possibly something like this would work "2 × 30 mm". The recently promoted SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse article uses this method
 * this seems inconsistent: "The ships have a quadruple 533 mm torpedo launcher..." v. "5 533-millimetre (21 in) torpedo tubes"
 * for a clearer illustration of what I am referring to in regards to citations for the tables, please see the standard employed here: List of battleships of Germany, where it is instantly clear where each statistic in the tables comes from.
 * Done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, promoting. -- Pres N  00:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


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