Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/INS Vikrant (R11)

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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

INS Vikrant (R11)

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk)

Featured article candidates/INS Vikrant (R11)/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. This is first A-Class nomination for an article, apart from the four in past, which are lists. Regarding the article, built by United Kingdom, it is India's first aircraft carrier. Commissioned in 1961, participated in 1971 Indo-Pak war, and decommissioned in 1997, after 35 years of service. After her short stint as a museum ship, she was finally scrapped in 2014. I welcome comments to help to promoted the article to A-Class, and eventually to FA. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was recently promoted to GA, reviewed by Sturmvogel_66. After that I have come across this link, that hints about a conspiracy the carrier was involved in. But I am not sure about adding this to the article in a separate section. Because the source is kind of blog (may not meet WP:RS). Secondly, no other sources have anything about this. Even though there are some links they blogs or discussion forums. Please suggest me over this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, interestingly I have read about this theory before. I think it was somewhere else...but I can't recall where. Ultimately, I'd suggest being very careful with this and unless more reliable sources can be found, I probably wouldn't mention it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can't find any reliable sources after many searches. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a crazy conspiracy theory.

Support Comments: Just a few minor comments at this stage. I will try to take a look again a bit later: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistent: "GlobalSecurity.org" v. "Global Security"
"Fleet Air Arm Archive" (should probably be in italics)
same as above for "First Post India"
"... the 'Vikrant Memorial' was unveiled by..." the MOS prefers double quotation marks over singular
"modernization refits — the first one from..." (should be an unspaced emdash)
"A 9.75-degree Ski-jump ramp was fitted..." (should probably be "ski-jump")
"...in 'Safe to Float' state...", probably should be decapitalised and in double quotation marks
inconsistent caps: "The Naval Headquarters remained..." v "At this time, the naval headquarters attempted..."
"INS Vikrant (R11) - History, Specs and Pictures": (should be an endash not a hyphen)
"Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers": (same as above)
"...by the Coast Battery...": not sure about the capitalization here, as it implies that it is the only one, is there an actual designation for this unit?
same as above for "the Clearance Driving Team"
"The plan was, if any misadventure happens..." this is not grammatically correct

@AustralianRupert: Thanks for the review. All done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I've gone through the article again and tried to copy edit it a bit. I hope that I've improved it, but I would recommend asking for someone else with more skill to take a look before taking it to FAC. In regards to content, I have one final question: during the annexation of Goa, did the ship's aircraft fly any operational sorties? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Added a sentence to satisfy your query. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've tweaked it a bit more and added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

"During early years of World War II, the Royal Navy decided to build a fleet of light aircraft carriers, that would take less time for construction to counter the German and Japanese navies." Remove the comma after "carriers". And less time than what?
- The Royal Navy decided to build carriers that would take less time for construction because they could be put into use as soon as possible in the war. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The final six were modified during construction to handle larger and faster aircraft, and were re-designated the Majestic class." What modifications are we talking about here?
"The flight deck was designed to handle aircraft up to 24,000 pounds (11,000 kg), however, 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) remained the heaviest landing weight of an aircraft." remove "however," and replace with "but"
"Their crew numbered 1,110 officers and ratings" should be "The crew"
Link STOVL
" Its aircraft consisted of Hawker Sea Hawk, Sea King Mk 42B, HAL Chetak, Sea Harrier (STOVL) and Breguet Alizé Br.1050" But not at the same time, correct?
"The ship's initial fleet consisted of" Can we have a better word than "fleet"?
Lieutenant Radhakrishna Hariram Tahiliani (later Admiral, Chief of the Naval Staff of India, 1984–1987). We don't normally use this form in Wikipedia. Re-phrase as prose.
": due to many internal fatigue cracks and fissures in the water drums of her boilers, that could not be repaired by welding" drop the comma
"The Naval Headquarters remained stubborn" Which Naval Headquarters?
"After receiving the reports that Pakistan might launch preemptive strikes" should be "pre-emptive"
- This is a variation of English, I have used Indian English. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will the new Vikrant have the same hull number?
- Which one you talking about? INS Vikrant (2013)? Yes it will be different. But any number is not assigned, since it was not commissioned. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I have done the changes, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-worded a couple of bits. All looks fine now. As a side note, I found the quote from Gulab Hiranandani particularly interesting, as it points to a debate in India over the value of aircraft carriers similar to those in the UK, Canada and Australia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by Peacemaker67

Given she was the first aircraft carrier, I would expect to read about what other aircraft carriers were commissioned during her service, and (briefly) how they differed from Vikrant, ie what lessons did the Indian Navy learn from Vikrant and what did they decide to do with their next carrier(s) as a result?

Actually this information isn't available from the sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect to read about the fact that a new INS Vikrant is in the works, and that should also be in the lead.
link keel laying at first mention of laid down
what is "improved displacement"? less? more? "improved" seems a strange way to describe displacement, but the nautical coves will probably correct me if I'm wrong.
suggest HMS Hercules, was ordered on 7 August 1942 and laid down on 14 October 1943
suggest she was 75 per cent complete
suggest In May 1947, she was laid up... No need to mention she was sold to India a decade later, we get that in the next sentence.
was the original design mentioned the Colussus class design or the Majestic one?
suggest Their flight decks if you are referring to the class
the mention of the heaviest aircraft is a bit confusing, does this refer to the heaviest aircraft landed on Vikrant or any of the Majestic carriers?
you've mixed references to Vikrant then the class, with Vikrant's displacement then an apparent reference to class characteristics, I suggest sticking to Vikrant at this point, you've already explained that the Majestic class varied from ship to ship.
the speed conversions are from nautical miles then miles, stick to nmi I suggest
is there any information about when the AA armament was reduced and why?
when you list the aircraft, perhaps mention and link what type of aircraft they were, ie Hawk was a jet fighter-bomber, the Sea King and Chetak were helos and the Alizé a turboprop ASW aircraft
Indian Navy's fleet
for the annexation
suggest replacing intercession with interference
we go from Bombay to Mumbai, suggest (formerly Bombay) if its name changed in the interim
replacement drums
it isn't very clear that the new drums hadn't arrived by February 1971, suggest making it clear
returned on 20 March
propeller revolutions to ~~revolutions to~~
suggest replacing confined with limited
suggest The primary concern of Naval Headquarters
suggest When asked his opinion regarding the involvement of Vikrant in the pending war, Captain (later Vice Admiral) Gulab Mohanlal Hiranandani, then the Fleet Operations Officer of the Indian Navy, told the Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Sardarilal Mathradas Nanda:
suggest the carrier to increased danger on operations
suggest ~~supported this criticism~~posed a significant risk to the carrier
suggest ~~in the war (if it happened)~~on operations
suggest This fleet rather than The fleet, as it could be confused with the whole fleet
if Kamorta and Kavaratti are likely to justify articles eventually ( would have thought so), redlink them
where was the surveillance triangle situated? The Bay of Bengal?
suggest found to be neutral
link war prize
suggest meantime not mean time
suggest ~~the~~ intelligence reports
suggest US-built Tench-class
I can't understand Ghazi was considered as a serious threat to Vikrant by the Indian Navy once her approximate position was known to the Pakistanis when she started operating aircraft.
take the parentheses off INS Kavaratti
meant that the other three had to remain in close vicinity
suggest ~~flying the~~operating aircraft
Commanding Officer shouldn't have initial caps
suggest concerned about ~~flying~~flight operations
suggest He was concerned that aircrew morale would be adversely affected if flight operations were not undertaken
~~The Indian~~ Naval Headquarters
some explanation of why the Alize was difficult to embark at low speed is needed. Suggest (assuming this is right) The speed restrictions imposed by the meant that Alize aircraft would have to land at close to stalling speed. Eventually this was achieved by reducing aircraft weight, and several of the aircraft were embarked in addition to a Seahawk squadron.
suggest ~~all the~~ maintenance
suggest sail ~~off~~ Vikrant
suggest messages would be sent to deceive the Pakistanis that Vikrant...
suggest ~~The submarine~~ Ghazi
suggest and she had reached a location near Madras by...
suggest|Naval Headquarters attempted to deceive the Pakistani Navy and Ghazi as far as possible. This was done by deploying Rajput as a decoy. Rajput sailed 160 mi (260 km) off the coast of Vishakhapatnam and broadcast a significant amount of radio traffic, making her appear to be Vikrant.}}
suggest ~~The submarine~~Ghazi sank
suggest ~~the same~~it
suggest ~~was reported to have~~ observed flotsam where?
~~that something had~~a vessel had
link clearance diving team
suggest ~~points out~~suggests
extent of the damage
suggest replacing dive in an immense hurry with crash dive and link
suggest replacing nose with bow
drop INS
drop initial caps in Commanding Officer
suggest ~~expected it to be a submarine diving~~suspected that it was caused by a submarine
~~until the 10th~~until 10 December
suggest Medium anti-aircraft fire was ~~observed~~encountered
suggest per cent (British English) assuming that is what you are writing in
same (optional for modernise etc)
V/STOL and ASW should be introduced when the aircraft are mentioned first in the article, and shouldn't be needed here
suggest ~~Since its commissioning~~During her service, INS Vikrant ~~has~~
Following ~~the~~ decommissioning
perhaps "earmarked"?

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the review, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I've made a couple of tweaks, check they are ok. Supporting, really good work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:INS_Vikrant.JPG: what is the copyright status of the pictured artwork?
File:A_Vikrant_Memorial_was_unveiled_by_Vice_Admiral_SPS_Cheema,_Flag_Officer_Commanding-in-Chief,_Western_Naval_Command_%26_Shri_Ajoy_Mehta,_Municipal_Commissioner,_Municipal_Corporation_of_Greater_Mumbai.jpg: what is the copyright status of the memorial? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Removed the images as the status is unclear. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.