Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of destroyers of India


 * 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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

List of destroyers of the Indian Navy

 * Nominator(s): KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. The list is currently a B-class list. As a next step, I am nominating the list for A-class review. The list has a good lead and prose for individual sections have been expanded during the B-class review. Each and every ship and every class is cited with reliable sources. The sentences in the lead and the prose throughout the sections are referenced. Please suggest improvements regarding citations, style, structure etc. The list also has considerable importance in scope of WikiProject India and one of the most important lists relating to the Indian military and the Indian Navy. Regards, KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  15:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments:  Below I'll be including some comments on how the article might be improved. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have expanded the other two sections too. Please review the entire article accordingly and suggest any further improvements required. I have not included prose for the Kolkata class in future ships section, as prose of the class is already mentioned in previous section of Kolkata class in commissioned ships. Regards, KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  12:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have collapsed our discussion above on the format of the wiki table to make it easier to navigate through the review, I will respost this part of the discussion on to the article's talk page for anybody who would like to review it. I'll look at the rest of the article soon and update you with any improvements or findings that I make here. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Looking forward to hear from you. Regards, KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  14:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind, but, I too will wait for the GOCE edit. I haven't noted anything otherwise problematic with the article barring a few prose issues. I assume GOCE will clear those up and then I'll give it another look. I am also otherwise occupied doing GA reviews so my apologies for the delay in responding here. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am too waiting for the GOCE edit. I'll notify you once it is complete. Regards,  KC Velaga  ✉  11:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The GOCE edit was complete. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support with optional suggestion; I think this is a lovely article, I only wonder if there's inconsistency in having a references column in the table at the same time you have references within the table itself (as in the row on the Kolkata class)? Not a deal-breaker, though. LavaBaron (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. Actually I have some about placing the references. But as you have mentioned the Kolkata class, the references I have included are for individual ships, but the for the others the references are applicable for the whole class. Regards, KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  01:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Citations

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this list. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * in the lead, I suggest adding a total number of decommissioned destroyers, to balance the line where you talk about the 10 current vessels;
 * the lead should be no more than four paragraphs per WP:LEAD, so I suggest merging a couple;
 * I suggest requesting a copy edit from the WP:GOCE, as there are still a few places where the grammar could be tightened;
 * SS-N-15 'Starfish' or possibly... the MOS requests double quotes here, I believe. For instance: SS-N-15 "Starfish" or possibly;
 * there is a mixture of US English spellings and British spellings in the article (for example, "centreline" (British) and "maneuverable" (US)). Either would be fine, IMO, but consistency is the key;
 * in the R class table, the date Rana was laid down appears to be missing;
 * in the Hunt class table, the date Godavari was laid down appears to be missing;
 * I have fixed the issues with the lead, double quotes and the dates of Rana and Godavari were laid. On you advice, I have placed request on the GOCE page. Regarding the mixture of English and British spellings, I am working on that. Regards, KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  12:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, I made a few more tweaks. Please check you are happy with those. I have a couple more observations also, please see below. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * citations 29, 30 and 31 should have publisher, author and accessdates added to them;
 * Lyon appears in the References but isn't used as a citation: suggest creating a Further reading section and putting it there, potentially with one or two more relevant, but uncited works (if they exist).
 * citations 32 and 33 should be converted to short citations, and the full reference listed in the References. Both citations should have page numbers, also.
 * Anyway, that's it from me: I will come back once the copy edit is finished. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. Fixed the issues with references. Regards, KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  06:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The GOCE edit was complete. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've made a couple more tweaks and added my support. If you wish to take this to FL, I suggest trying to cover off on the hidden comments the copy editor left in the article, but otherwise it looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Quite a bit of duplicate links - there's a script here you can install that will highlight them for you.
 * "This also makes the Kolkata class the heaviest of the destroyer classes presently in active service with the Indian Navy" - this seems to be redundant to the sentence that precedes it. Obviously, if the ship is the heaviest destroyer of the Indian Navy, the class will necessarily also be the heaviest class.
 * "they have 2,363 modifications" - this strikes me as puffery
 * Are the Kolkata class destroyers or frigates? The two ship types are not one in the same.
 * Why is the displacement figure for the Kolkata class given by the media used in the table instead of that from the Indian Navy? I'd think the Navy ought to know better than the media what their own ships displace.
 * I might recommend a photo like this one for the lead section - helps to illustrate just what the destroyers do. Of course, if there's a better option that's fine too.
 * File:INS Kolkata.jpg - not real sure I buy the uploader's claim, given they uploaded this obvious copyvio.
 * File:HMS Raider 1942 IWM FL 9760.jpg - not sure the copyright tag is correct. Photo is attributed to a Stewart Bale Ltd, Liverpool, so it's clearly not a work of the British government. We also need to know how the photo is PD in the US, since Wikimedia servers are in the US.
 * File:Slazak wraca spod Dieppe.jpg - this photo was likely first published in Britain, not Poland. Without a source, it cannot be definitively proved either way, and of course evidence of free usage in the US is also necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have fixed all the issues you mentions; duplicate links, sentences, displacement and all. Regarding the image suggestions; the image you've suggested was added in the lead section. The issue with other three images; I have used these images [(Kolkata), (Raider), (Slazak)]from commons which are licensed under the free license of CC by S.A 4.0, per the policy of UK and per Polish Copyright Law Act of February 4, 1994. And they are available on commons I think they can be used in the list. Please suggest further improvements required. Regards,  KC Velaga  ✉  10:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, but what I'm saying is the license tags for those photos are not correct. The first is likely a copyright violation (i.e., the uploader is not the creator, given the very dubious nature of his other uploads), the second is not a work of the British government, and the third is likely not under Polish copyright law. Parsecboy (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If I may add to that slightly; the issue is, that anybody can place any license they wish on an image. I could go to google images, take any image I want, upload it to Wikimedia Commons and tag it with CC-BY-SA-3.0, or PD-1923, or whatever. The onus is on the uploader to also include proof that the attributed license is correct. As an example for license abuse; PD-1923 This page is now in the PD in the US, even though it was clearly published long after 1923, the date of creation as you can see is 28 July 2016, but, I am claiming it was before 1923. Similarly, Parsecboy has suspicions that the uploader may have done a similar thing, included an appropriate license that they fabricated to suit their purpose of adding it to Wikipedia quite illegally. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * and I have replaced the image for INS Kolkata, think it has been licensed appropriately. Regarding the other two please consider this for Raider and this, this for Salazak. Please review those images before I add them. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  11:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed the link for the Kolkata photo, the suggested image for Raider should be fine, and the second option for Slazak is good (but the first one is a no-go). Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Replaced images accordingly. Thank you. Regards,  KC Velaga  ✉  13:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The GOCE edit was complete. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The article reads better now, though I'm not thrilled with the new title of the list. The previous title was the standard format adopted by several editors (including me) - see for instance List of cruisers of Germany, List of battlecruisers of the United States, List of battleships of Austria-Hungary, etc. The ideal title should probably be List of destroyers of India. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I have expressed the same opinion in the move discussion on the article's talk page. Anyway I have moved the page as per the standard format. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I ping and  to give their final vote regarding the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:56, 29 August 2016 (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.