Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Peer review

Indian Air Force

edit

Previous Peer Review (2009)

We made quite a few changes and wanted to hear about other contributers' comments so that we can get it to GA or A status. Sumanch (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


AustralianRupert

edit

I can see that a lot of effort has been put into this article so far. These are my suggestions for improvements to the article:

  • According to the Featured article tools there are two disambig links that should be fixed: [1];
  DoneSumanch (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the final sentence in the Mission section needs a citation;
Found a citation for assistance during natural disasters. Couldn't find one for assistance to maintain internal security. --Gremaldin (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the History section, you have the abbrievation "RAF" (for Royal Air Force), but haven't introduced the abbrievation yet. Thus, I feel here you should replace "RAF" with "Royal Air Force (RAF)";
Didn't see any such use, may be it was fixed. Sumanch (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a mixture of terminology, e.g in the lead you have "World War II" then later in the History section you have "Second World War";
  DoneSumanch (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the final sentence in the first paragraph of the History section needs a citation ("After the war, they were interned..."
  • in the final sentence of the first paragraph of the History section "allies" should be capitalised as it is a proper noun, while "Couter-martialed" shouldn't be as it isn't;
  DoneSumanch (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the History section, I think you should break up the paragraph beginning with "The IAF saw significant conflict" - I think you should split it at the end of the sentence ending with "when the UN mission ended";
  Done Sumanch (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the History section, this sentence needs a citation: "At the same time, the IAF also started inducting Mach 2 capable Soviet MiG-21 and Sukhoi Su-7 fighters."
  DoneSumanch (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last part of the Bases section needs a citation;
  Done --Gremaldin (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first paragraph in the Squadrons section needs a citation;
Found a citation for "All fighter squadrons are headed by a Commanding Officer with the rank of Wing Commander." Couldn't find one for "Some Transport squadrons and Helicopter Units are headed by a Commanding Officer with the rank of Group Captain." --Gremaldin (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last sentence in the Garud Commando Force section needs a citation;
  Done Unvarifiable. Sumanch (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the IAF personnel section this should be fixed "F H MAJOR" - I think this is meant to be a wikilink, can you please fix the capitalisation?

  DoneSumanch (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • the last part of the Officers subsection needs a citation: "The IAF selects candidates for officer training from these applicants. After completion of training, candidate are commissioned as Flying Officers";
  DoneSumanch (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Non Combatants Enrolled and civilians section needs a citation;
  Done Sumanch (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last sentence in the Airborne Early Warning aircraft section needs a citation;
  Done --Gremaldin (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last part of the Transport section needs a citation;
  Done --Gremaldin (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last part of the Tanker aircraft section needs a citation;
  Done --Gremaldin (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last part of the Training aircraft section needs a citation;
  Done --Gremaldin (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Helicopters section needs a citation;
  Done --Gremaldin (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Footnotes section, some of your web citations are just bare urls (e.g. Citation # 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90 - these should be formatted as the others are with the {{cite web}} template.
  Done --Gremaldin (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far and good luck with improving the article. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sumanch

edit

Need some clarification of this usage policy for images.
Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is explicitly identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. - Indian Air Force - Usage Policy Sumanch (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the IAF maintains the copyright but the images can be used with a Fair use rationale. In terms of Wikipedia's image policy, this means basically that you need to be certain that you can't find a free (or non copyrighted) image to replace it. If a free image is available (i.e. one that's in the public domain), or it is reasonable that one might exist, then you can't use a copyrighted image with a claim of fair use. That's my take, but I might be wrong. This might help: Wikipedia:Non-free content. Anyone, please correct me if I am wrong. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk

edit

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I couldn't find any other articles about an Air Force which are FA (or A) quality for comparison. The United States Marine Corps is FA, so its probably a better template than the RAF article; in comparison to the structure to the USMC and USAF articles:

  • mission section is just a paragraph instead of having multiple subsections
Romanian Land Forces is a GA and it has a similar mission section.Sumanch (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that section meets A or FA quality, be my guest and use it, but I certainly don't. Also, Australian Defence Force is another FA article you can look at which has a different structure. Kirk (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --Gremaldin (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • history section should have subsections
It used to have one. But this new structure was advised in the previous peer review.Sumanch (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned your review and I didn't notice that anywhere other than a desire for the article to be shorter in this section. Look at the United States Marine Corps article and the History article. The USMC article has some high level subheadings in the History section which summarize mutltiple sections in the USMC History Article. Origins, Partition of India, Summary of conflict 1961-1971 (I don't know what to call this), etc. would make it easier to read. Kirk (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I divided the history section into subsections in my sandbox. I will wait for opinions before applying the changes to the main page. --Gremaldin (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --Gremaldin (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • personnel include 'the IAF', which probably isn't needed, and probably should use the same sub-sections as USAF: consider adding training, awards and uniform. The USMC article has uniform in a separate section.
Added a training susection. --Gremaldin (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is Junior Commissioned Officer is a Indian Army term; I think the proper term in the IAF is Warrant Officer. Its distinct enough it probably should have its own subsection to explain why the IAF has Warrant officers when the Indian Army has Junior Commissioned Officers.
Junior Commissioned Officer is a rank category. The Warrant officers in the IAF, Subedars in the Army, and Petty Officers in the Navy fall in this category. The category of JCO was created by the british because at that time Indians were not allowed to be an officer. Sumanch (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you are saying, but you need to back that up with a reference and its probably only worthwhile as a footnote. Just looking over the IAF website, I can't find any reference to Junior Comissioned Officers, so I'd remove that subheading on the table with Junior Commissioned Officers and Enlisted. Example: [2] Kirk (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure or Organization; seems to me organization is better since that's what the USMC article uses. And why does Aerospace command get its own section?
It is a work in progress. Right now we are open to suggestions. Sumanch (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made Integrated Space Cell a subsection of the Structure section. --Gremaldin (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The future section is mostly a bullet list...not sure I recall seeing that in a FA article before. Note both USAF and USMC article have a culture section.

  Done Converted it into prose. --Gremaldin (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The USMC article doesn't have a very detailed equipment section, i've noticed most air force articles devote a lot of space to detailing each aircraft in use, which probably isn't in line with WP:SUMMARY

  Done Made the "aircraft inventory" section much more concise and comprehensive. --Gremaldin (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The info box could more stuff in there, but this seems to vary widely between Air Force articles. Maybe add engagements, I would guess the commander section could be more extensive, the personnel section could be more detailed with active, reserve, guard numbers.
No, I think over-corwding the infobox creates distraction. Infobox should contain only the absolutely need to know and nothing more. USMC infobox is a bad example. Sumanch (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why its a bad example, I guess you don't think its an FA article? Also, I'd like to know how many personnel are active vs reserve, but the article doesn't contain that information & it would be nice in the infobox. Kirk (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added engagements. --Gremaldin (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Vice chief of air staff under the commander section. --Gremaldin (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just high level stuff, hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Indian_Air_Force&oldid=1217236179"