Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Navy/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Indian Navy

Nominating for Featured article.

Chanakyathegreat 04:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Too list-heavy (not enough prose); too many fair-use images; short, stubby paragraphs (e.g., in "Expedition and Adventure"); only 9 inline references, some of which don't line up. — TKD::Talk 05:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a. The lead provides examples of why the whole text needs to be thoroughly copy-edited, preferably by someone who's relatively unfamiliar with it.
In terms of personnel, it is the world's fifth largest navy[1] with a total strength of 55,000 men and women including 5,000 naval aviation personnel and 2,000 marines (MARCOS). Indian navy currently operates over 180 vessels, including one aircraft carrier. An expansion and modernisation programme is going on with the introduction of new warships, submarines, weapon systems and technology. The Indian navies primary role is the protection of sea lanes, preventing piracy, terrorism and protecting the exclusive economic zones of India. In future Indian navy may participate in U.N peace keeping operations at sea. A secondary responsiblity of the Indian navy is to provide assistance during natural calamities and disasters. During the Asian tsunami crisis and the Lebanon crisis the Indian navy played an important role in providing assistance not only to Indian citizens but also to friendly neighbouring countries. The navy is used by India to build better relationship with the nations around the world through exercise and port visits. The Indian navy is increasing this capabilities to be a truly blue water navy as explained in its doctrine for the collective good of nations.
    • Can you decide on N or n for "navy"? The title and subtitles use upper case; the body of the text uses lower case.
    • You might consider removing "In terms of personnel", since it's obvious from the rest of the sentence.
    • Commas needed throughout the article, for ease of reading and clarity of meaning. "... men and women including 5,000 naval aviation personnel and ..."—Are the 5,000 all women? Probably not, so make it easy for us and insert a comma after "women".
    • "MARCOS" could be spelt out on first occurrence.
    • "THE Indian navy", throughout.
    • Most style manuals prefer "more than" to "over" in this context. (Why?)
    • "is going on" is rather informal; try "is underway". Can you pin this program down chronologically? "has been underway since 2004 ...", or something like that?
    • Category problem: weapons systems are technology. Can you be more specific, or say "and other technologies"?
    • "Navy's", not "navies".
    • UN please: lose the dots. Does this statement need a reference? It's a substantial assertion about the future. And it comes between primary and secondary responsibilities, floating there, as it were. I'd remove it and treat this lower down.
    • How do "calamities" differ from "disasters"? Choose one.
    • "A secondary responsiblity of the Indian navy is to ...". Remove "of the Indian navy", which is obvious from the context.
    • "During the Asian tsunami crisis and the Lebanon crisis the Indian navy played an important role in providing assistance not only to Indian citizens but also to friendly neighbouring countries." Lots of changes required: "During the Asian tsunami and Lebanon crises, the Indian navy played important roles, providing assistance to the citizens of not only India, but of friendly neighbouring countries." I guess the Pakistanis were left without—is that what "friendly" is alluding to?
    • "The navy is used by India to build better relationship with the nations around the world through exercise and port visits." Avoid passive where possible: "India uses its navy to build ...". "The nations around the world" is a bit of a cliche; try "to enhance its international relations through joint exerciseS and port visits.".

Now, a major collaborative effort is required to get this up to the required "professional" standard. Please network to garner your colleagues for this purpose: it's nowhere near good enough. Someone can start on the superficial issues of upper/lower case and singular vs plural. But there are problems everywhere. Tony 06:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Refer to Peer-review. Don't hurry! The article is good with potential, but not ready for FA. I suggest a new peer-review. As it is now, it is under-referenced and with listy sections.--Yannismarou 09:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per all above plus all the external jumps need converted to standard references. Rlevse 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Rather a peer review is needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object refer to Peer Review per above. It could develop into a FA but is not one now. Hello32020 20:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)