Talk:INS Saryu (P54)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC) I'll get started on this one shortly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	see comments
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	OK, but other MOS issues per comments
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	OK
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	OK
	2c. it contains no original research.	OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There are a few points below that need addressing here
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It currently gives the impression the ship is entirely Indian-made, when that is not the case. Information about the country/company of origin of the armament, electronics and engines is needed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Incremental improvements only
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	has no images, see query below
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	has no images, see query below
	7. Overall assessment.	on hold for seven days for comments to be addressed. Listed.

Comments

• in the infobox, melara should be Melara Done
• in the infobox, FCS seems unnecessary. What ships armament system doesn't include a FCS these days, and the FCS isn't just for the 76 mm gun?

That isn't unreasonable to say, but a prospective reader might not be aware of this. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• needs convert templates throughout Done
• the article begs the question what proportion of the ship is Indian-made, and it should probably be noted in the text that the weapons systems are Italian and Russian manufactured. Done
• what model of the AK630 is the CIWS? CIWS should be spelt out initially then the initialisation used after that if needed. Done
• AM Roy should probably be redlinked given he is a three star. Done
• what attempts have been made to locate a free image of the vessel?

Many by the original author. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

more to follow. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• SEMT Pielstick should be linked, but are they SEMT or Kirloskar-Pielstick engines? Done

I believe they are SEMT, but I am unsure. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• is 2,300 her displacement? Done

No. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• 76.2 or 76 mm gun? Done
• can the ship support a helo, or is a helo part of its complement? It isn't clear. Done
• Andaman and Nicobar Command is overlinked, and the initialisation should be introduced at its first mention in the body and then used from then on. Done
• what is the link between the 2008 Mumbai attacks and the ordering of the vessel? Done
• I consider all her dimensions should be explicitly detailed in the body, not just the infobox, along with conversion templates for the numbers. Done
• suggest "delivered within 18 months (of what? the commissioning of Saryu?), at six month intervals" Done
• link Indian Navy in lead Done
• suggest "INS Saryu is the most advanced vessel to be constructed by GSL in terms of design, performance and quality." Done
• suggest to have the capability. They've done it. Done
• have any more ships of the class been delivered yet? If not, are they overdue? Done

Yes, but that is to be mentioned on the class' page, not this article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• MOS mandates spelling out numbers under 10. Done
• delete "modern", it is unnecessary. The IN wouldn't be installing obsolete Done
• Commander Singh is the first commanding officer, not "will be". If this is his second command, perhaps add what ship his first command was. Done
• retrieval dates (in references) should be a consistent format. Done
• There are several weblinks that change domain or path which need fixing. Done

Reference 4 and 12 (the ones denoted as faulty by the link you provided) both link to the intended source. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• the ELs include two links that go nowhere (1st and 5th), and others that show a vessel which appears to be marked P54, not P57. A couple at least are probably copyvio links. I recommend you delete them all. If no free image is available, we are not permitted to try to get around that by using external links to non-free images. Done

I have done so. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• no close paraphrasing or copyvios detected by earwig (except a WP mirror site).

So nothing needs to be done in this regard? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• not sure why or is italicised in the infobox Done

My assumption is that it was input to add emphasis, but I will alter it. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• consistency in infobox between metres and m Done
• Class and type and type in infobox are repetitive Done

They are pre-programmed into the infobox template

• there is some confusion between past, current and future tense. ie "the ship will", "will be commanding", "she will be" etc Done

Placing on hold for seven days for the above comments to be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Above comments have been addressed and I consider this article now meets the GA criteria. Well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)