Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Indian naval air squadrons


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

List of Indian naval air squadrons

 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this list for A-Class review. With the first squadron commissioned in 1959, Indian Navy currently operates twenty-one squadrons. From the previous A-class reviews I have faced, I constructed this list with care and consistency. All the ranges are per the MOS, and also everything is referenced. Unlike the FA, FL criteria allows citations in the lead if it is not the summary of the immediate tables. So there are a few citations in the lead and all the uncited sentences are the summary of the table, in the which they are completely cited. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, nice work as usual. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * emdashes should be unspaced per WP:DASH. For instance, "another Sea King squadron — INAS 339 — was commissioned..." should be "another Sea King squadron—INAS 339—was commissioned..."
 * there are probably too many images in the lead, as it seems a bit cluttered
 * the header "List of squadrons" should probably just be "Squadrons"
 * per WP:LAYOUT the Commons link should be in the last section of the list, which in this case is the External links section
 * Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * there is one dab link that should be resolved: "Britain"
 * What is the dab in there? Britain directs to United Kingdom, it is correct. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It was fixed with this edit: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * in many cases the nicknames and aircraft do not appear to be cited
 * The end citations in "Established" column covers all the data in the row. I have changed the format of the table so that the end citations covers the entire row. The aircraft are covered by the citations for their operation period. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * some of the grammar should be revised, for instance: "The squadrons commissioned until 1971, saw action in 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, especially the ones stationed on the aircraft carrier Vikrant".
 * given that the lead does not wholly replicate the list below, I would submit that each paragraph should end with a citation to meet WP:V
 * Done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good; I've made a couple more tweaks, and have added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments I really like the formatting of this article, but it needs some more work to reach A-class status:
 * I'm a bit concerned that globalsecurity.org is used as a reference: this isn't a reliable source.
 * Please see Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
 * Many previous discussions have concluded that it is not a RS. Given that globalsecurity.org largely copies and pastes its content from elsewhere, it should be able to be replaced. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Replaced. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please list the UAV types operated by 342, 343 and 344 squadrons for consistency with the other squadrons
 * Done


 * The "role" column probably needs separate rows to make the changing role of squadrons as their aircraft changed clearer
 * There was only one such, INS 310, changed it. The others, even though the aircraft changed, the role remained the same.


 * Given that there's an "established" column, shouldn't there also be a "disbanded" column to provide the dates for the units which are no longer active?
 * All the squadrons are active.
 * OK, I missed that. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful to explain the squadron numbering conventions: it appears that frontline units are 300-series, and training units (mainly) are 500-series. Do we know why 300 and 500 were selected?
 * There is no specific reasoned mentioned in the sources
 * OK Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "The concept of naval aviation in India started with the establishment of Directorate of Naval Aviation at Naval Headquarters (NHQ) in early 1948" - surely it was a legacy of the Royal Navy, which had aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean for most of the period after 1942.
 * Yes, the Royal Navy operated, but not the Royal Indian Navy, which did not have any aircraft carriers. The Royal Navy did not have any connection with India. RIN was later rechristened as Indian Navy upon independence. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's right to be honest. The Indian Navy was obviously greatly influenced by the RN during its early years, and the concept of investing in naval aviation wouldn't have come from out of the blue. The Royal Australian Navy and Royal Canadian Navies also established air arms at about this time due to their wartime experiences and the influence of British doctrine (not the mention the easy availability of affordable aircraft carriers and aircraft from the UK). Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So what do you suggest on your last comment? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I had a crack at addressing this with this edit: . Not sure if that resolves your concern at all... Please feel free to revert if it doesn't work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it does: I was waiting for a response from the nominator. Anyway, I'm now happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't replied cause I am OK with Rupert's edit. Are there any concerns? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume "not" was typo and intended to be "now"? Just checking because it rather changes the meaning of the sentence! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it was a typo :) Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The external link tracker shows 1 link is questionable (see results). Otherwise, I am willing to support this ACR for promotion as everything else appears to be in good order. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I don't know what made the tracker to do that. But please go and check the link. It is working fine. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Support, as everything else appears to be in order. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.