Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Indian Air Force/Archive1

Indian Air Force
I have done significant changes to this article. I will appreciate thoughts of other editors. It will be great to get some input from others and make this article better.Sumanch (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

 * There are a lot of refs in the article lead they should be covered in the body of the article if possible leaving the lead free of refs. It also makes it easier to read
 * ✅ Done Sumanch (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The mission statement seems to have some text missing and it needs referencing at the end of the paragraph
 * REF 114 cites Wikipedia we can not ref our own articles
 * ✅ Corrected. Sumanch (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two different type of dates used; 8 October and October 8 you should select which one you prefer and use that one throughout
 * ✅ Fixed. Sumanch (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some date are linked others are not the present preference is to leave them un linked.
 * ✅ I think, I got them all. If you find any, please feel free to correct them or let me know. Sumanch (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 is linked via [went to war] so unless you click on the link the conflict goes unnoticed it would be better to use the link [Indo-Pakistani War of 1965]
 * There are large sections un referenced After the 1965 war for example
 * I am not sure if its only my settings but the rank tables are obscured by images
 * I am guessing that English is not your first language as the article could use a good copy edit
 * I agree I do need help of someone who can do a good copyedit. How did you guess? Sumanch (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That all for now this is a huge article well done for attempting it --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

 * No cites in section headers. Not allowed
 * ✅ Done. Sumanch (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In general reference books at the bottom, do not put page numbers in there, as it is a general ref not attached to a certain passage of wrtigin  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When I put the page numbers, they ment total number introductory page followed by total number of content pages. I thought to list books for general reference it is customery to do that. Usually when you search a book in the library, the information includes the number of pages. Let me know if this is an issue. Sumanch (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Askari Mark
A tremendous amount of work has gone into this article and the editors are to be commended for it. Having just skimmed through it, I have a number of general and specific recommendations to make for further improving it.

General: 
 * Regularise usage of “air force” vice “airforce”. Former is preferable.
 * ✅ My mistake — fixed it. Sumanch (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Contentious claims – particularly those regarding the comparative performance of Indian and Pakistani forces, disputed reports of kills and losses, and the effectiveness of each side’s air forces – should rely on independent, reliable and neutral sources wherever possible, rather than the heavy reliance on Indian sources currently seen here. If you don’t, this article will eventually invite contentious editing between the various “truth” claims from each side.
 * ✅ Sumanch (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead
 * Para. 3: “Some the aircraft in the Air Force's inventory are ageing.”  No, all of them are.  Should indicate that a large portion of the air force is comprised of elderly aircraft quickly approaching the end of their service lives.  With lengthy delays in the development of an indigenous replacement fighter, the MRCA program was launched.
 * ✅ Fixed. Sumanch (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mission:  The first sentence, which incorporates a lengthy, set-apart quote, is awkward to the point of making the reader want to look for the missing text.

History: 
 * Para. 1: Should give the force size at the start of WWII, then address the growth in 1943 and 1945.
 * ✅ Added Sumanch (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Para. 2: The sentence beginning “In 1947…” is a non-sequitur.  Also, the “Uri bowl” is an unintelligible reference to most general readers and lacks context for them to discover what is meant.
 * ✅ Fixed. Sumanch (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Para. 4: May want to do further research on the “attrition rates”.  I suspect these are based on all combat sorties – or perhaps even all military aircraft sorties – which, if so, isn’t a reliable justification for claiming “…that the IAF fared better in air-to-air combat” – which would make this statement original research.  The statistic you’re really wanting to find to support the claim is the “loss-exchange ratio”.
 * ✅ I agree, I fixed the later part. Sumanch (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Para. 6: The claim “Comparatively, the PAF was flying fewer sorties by the day fearing loss of planes” needs citation and not from an Indian source.
 * ✅ Sounded Peacocky — Deleted. Sumanch (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Para. 7: This whole paragraph does not come across as NPOV.  It is difficult to trumpet as “strategically successful” an unopposed operation into an unoccupied area (much less one in contravention of an agreement not to).  I’m also aware of criticism from the Indian Army over the performance of the IAF in this action, which perhaps ought to be added for balance.
 * ✅ Sumanch (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also: The deployment of IAF aircraft into Afghanistan is a significant event that should probably be mentioned.
 * I never heard anything about IAF deployment in Afghanistan. There was news about IAF leasing a base in Tajikistan but it did not materialize. Sumanch (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct; I was tired and confused it with the Army training missions to Afghanistan (and Uzbekistan). My understanding is that small numbers of IAF personnel and aircraft assigned to the International Air Command rotate through Farkhor Air Base, Tajikistan. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Officer:  The image of officers’ rank badges appears too wide to fit on a screen for IE users. This needs to be adjusted.
 * Let me know if the issue is still there.

IAF Aircraft:  It is illogical to provide an exact count of 1502 aircraft and then point out that “reliable sources provide notably divergent estimates for a variety of high-visibility aircraft.”
 * ✅ I will generalize it and say over 1500. Let me know if it is OK. Sumanch (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is fine, Sumanch. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reconnaissance and Airborne Early Warning aircraft:  The first sentence about UAVs seems out of place and irrelevant since an entire section on them shortly follows.
 * ✅ Fixed. Sumanch (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Aerospace Command:  This should be moved to the end of the Commands section.

I might have some structural change suggestions to after I get some time to think about it. The article is very long and could use some tightening up, but I’m aware that’s hard to do.

Sumanch
I had edited this article in IE, visually it looked fine both in IE and firefox. Another editor formated it in firefox, now firefox looks better but IE is screwed up. Any sugestions? Sumanch (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently some other change "fixed" it as it now appears okay on IE. Wikimarkup can sometimes produce strange results. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz
Checked some references and found this. More feedback later Solution:
 * These may not fit the relaible source definition:
 * http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/index.html ("This is not the official website of the Indian Air Force and is neither    endorsed nor recognised officially by the Indian Air Force or any of its institutions.,  ......Jagan Pillarisetti     and Samir Chopra. Neither Bharat-Rakshak.com nor any of its members other than Jagan or     Samir are responsible for the accuracy of the information nor will Bharat-Rakshak.com be     held accountable for any damage or liability arising over the inaccuracy or inappropriate     usage of information contained within this sub-site. "), Are Jagan Pillarisetti     and Samir Chopra.  notable  experts of IAF?
 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html
 * http://www.domain-b.com/index.htm (Non-notable news website)
 * Remove all references from the site, replace with other ref
 * Prove the said site is a WP:RS
 * Khan, Maj.Gen. Fazal Muqeeum (1973).(26) page no needed -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Found Replcement Sumanch (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight
It's a pretty good article overall. Here's just a couple of things to fix up here: ✅ Sumanch (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC) ✅ Sumanch (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the lede, link to President of India, Air Chief Marshal, 1965 Indo-Pakistan war, and Arjan Singh in the 3rd paragraph, which looks rather bleak without links.
 * In the history section, the IAF's involvement in WWII is rather short, only getting one sentence describing it. If possible, it should be expanded. Also "During the Sino-Indian War of 1962, India's military planners failed to deploy and effectively use the IAF against the invading Chinese forces.[17] " Any examples of ineffective use?
 * In the same section, "Indian experts believe that the Atlantic was on a probing mission to gather information on IAF air defence.[50]" Is there any particular reason why probing mission is in italics? If not, it should be removed
 * The 2nd last paragraph of the history section could use some links to the types of aircraft/helicopters used by the IAF
 * In the "Bases" subsection, all numbers look better spelled out.
 * In the "Airmen" subesection, add some relevant links
 * In the "Non Combatants Enrolled and Civilians" there are no citations whatsoever.--Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nosedown

 * Please go through Lead section. The current lead has a lot of material which is not objective and as per policy, sources are required. --Nosedown (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All claims in the lead has been addressed in the body of the Article. Wikipedia policy discourages redundant citations, specifically when lead is concerned. There no citations were used or redundant citations removed systematically. Sumanch (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Several changes were made to the lead paras without discussion. The editor who made these changes argues that they were made in accordance with the peer review. I have gone the peer review and below are main points:
 * Lead paras


 * One of the reviewers raised this valid point "There are a lot of refs in the article lead they should be covered in the body of the article if possible leaving the lead free of refs. It also makes it easier to read." And as per the suggestion, all the refs were removed. However, as per policy, "any material [in lead paras] not in the body should be sourced as usual". IAF being the world's fourth largest is not mentioned anywhere else in the article and hence a source on this is required in the lead paras.


 * It is surprising that this article was being pushed for FA-status with sentences like "India is increasingly projecting its power beyond South Asia" and "A defining moment came for the force in 1971, during the Bangladesh liberation war." Please keep Wikipedia free of nationalistic bias.


 * Minute details — such as who awarded the IAF the prefix royal; under what circumstances was a particular officer promoted to the post of Marshall etc. — belong to relevant sections, not lead paras. Keep the lead to the point.

I have made appropriate changes. --Nosedown (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)