Talk:INS Vikrant (1961)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 03:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• No DABs, external links OK.
• I've cleaned up the infobox for you and added links to most of the measurements.

• Thanks for that.

• Provide conversions for all measurements on first use. Like 40 mm.
• In the infobox the aircraft field is for the number of aircraft that she could operate.
• And the aircraft facilities is for things catapults and ski jumps.

• Done.

• What kind of radars was the ship fitted with? Should be in the infobox and in the description.

• Added.

• Images appropriately licensed.
• The items in the See Also section are mostly redundant to the navbox for Indian carriers at the bottom and move the commons link to the External links section.
• Link World War II, commissioned, decommissioned, scrapped, fleet aircraft carrier

• Done.

• Give date of sale for scrap or of actual scrapping in the infobox, lede and main body.

• Already mention in the main body (section 5), added to infobox and lead.

• January 1997 and from 1997 to 2012, she was preserved add a comma between "and" and "from"
• Be consistent on usage, is it World War II or Second World War?
• Royal Navy proposed to built light aircraft carriers, that would take less duration for construction, especially to counter the German and Japanese navies. "The" Royal Navy; "planned" not proposed; "time" not duration; and deleted the last comma and "especially"
• Do not italicize British light fleet carrier
• navies, not naval forces
• Sixteen Light Fleet do not capitalize light and fleet
• front line operations say "combat" instead.
• series of six carriers You already told the reader that there were six Majestics, so rephrase this to something that tells the reader that she was the fifth ship of the Majestics and that's all.
• HMS Hercules, ordered "was" ordered.
• seventy-five percent of ship was fitted out. rephrase to read 75% complete.
• and in May 1947 comma between "and" and "in"

• Done.

• Do you have exact dates of sale? If so, add them to the main body and infobox.

• Unfortunately, no, only the month and year are available, and are already mentioned. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Your changes look good, although you should thank Llammakey (talk · contribs) for fixing some of your links; be careful to properly disambiguate the links if necessary. I fixed the external links section by moving the Commons cat link to the first entry. That makes the section look much more compact as most link titles aren't long enough to reach the right side of the screen. And I rewrote a bit of the design section for you and added some links to measurements. Feel free to alter it if it doesn't suit.
• Link lifts, radar
• As the carriers were never used by the Royal Navy, they were sold to several Commonwealth nations post World War II. rephrase this along the lines of: "After the war, the carriers were sold..."
• Though the ships shared almost similar characteristics, they varied from ship to ship depending on the request by the country the ship was sold to. Rephrase to something like: "Although the ships shared similar characteristics, they varied from ship to ship depending on the requirements of the country to which the ship was sold."
• What kind of modifications did the ship receive in 1965?
• Always tell the reader what type of ship when mentioning it for the first time, forex destroyer XX, etc.
• water drums of her boilers, that were beyond repair by welding Awkward, rephrase
• further orders were issued Change to "further notice"
• was made to move from Ballard Pier Extension Simply this and change to the ship "moved from..."
• sea trials, it was accepted to operate the boilers at a pressure of 400 pounds per square inch (2,800 kPa), and limiting the maximum revolutions to 120 RPM ahead, and 80 RPM astern after the first comma, change to "the navy decided to limit the boilers to a pressure of 400 pounds per square inch (2,800 kPa) and the propeller revolutions to..." Also delete all commas, they're not normally used with "and"
• Don't bother abbreviating knots, it's already a short word.
• With the growing conjunctures of a war with Pakistan in the coming future, the navy started to mobilize its fleet to strategically advantageous locations in the Indian waters. Change "conjunctures" to "expectations", "coming" to "near", "mobilize" to "transfer", "fleet" to "ships" and delete the last "the"
• When mentioning somebody for the first time, use full name and then refer to them by the last name.
• Is Hiranandani's quote in English in the source or did you have to translate it?
  • This needs an answer because the English needs to be fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• The quote is mentioned in English in the source.

• There were objections that there might severe operational difficulties, leading the carrier prone more danger from the enemy. Rephrase this along the lines of: "There were objections that the ship might have severe operational difficulties that would expose the carrier to more danger."
• Rewrote a fair amount of the para after the quote to expedite things, and, again, feel free to make changes if necessary.
• Down to Indo-Pakistani War, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

All  Done, the nothing is available about her modifications in 1965, just a service checkup (as mentioned in the source). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Apart the lethal advantage in pre-preemptive stage, Vikrant's position would be known once she started operating aircraft. What does this first clause mean?

• It should just be "preemptive stage", corrected that.

• That's part of the problem, but what do you mean by Apart the lethal advantage in preemptive stage What preemptive stage and what lethal advantage? Is this about the sub or the carrier? Do you mean that the carrier would have a major advantage only for the first attack by her aircraft?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• which left the other three to continuously remain in the close vicinity (5–10 mi (8.0–16.1 km)) of Vikrant, unless the carrier would be completely vulnerable to attack from Ghazi Change "left" to "meant that", delete "continuously", "unless" to "without which", and "from" to "by".
• Finally after completion radar Change to "After the completion of the radar"

• Done.

• Give Prakash's full name and link. Same with Sharma and Sinha

• Sinha was already mentioned in full name, "Shekhar Sinha". For the others only initials were available from the source, mentioned them.

• Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• was seriously concerned about flying part. He worried that the aircrew would be demoralized if no aircraft flew from the ship, that would lead to be disastrous. Delete "part in the first sentence and change the last clause of the second sentence to: ", which could be disastrous".
• compromising of the speed Delete "of"

• Done.

• With different possibilities in view, such as, accepting the launch and recovery of aircraft at marginal speeds and build up speed for a short duration so as to operate aircraft at marginal speeds, eventually, an Alizé aircraft was hooked on board. What does this mean?

• It means that Vikrant was completely able to operate aircraft at full-scale. So constraints such as marginal speeds were taken to operate the aircraft.

• Still not understanding. Marginal speeds for who, the aircraft or the carrier? Are you trying to say that the Alize was flown aboard barely above stalling speed and with very little weight?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah yes, exactly.

• OK, then say so in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• The plan was, in case of any adversity, the fleet, especially Vikrant, would be sailed off to a remote anchorage, completely isolating it from the outside world. Awkward, rephrase.

• Done

• if any misadventure happens, change happens to happened.

• On 14 December, the Sea Hawks attacked the cantonment area destroying several army barracks. Where? Chittagong?

• Yes, added.

• fully operationalize the new Sea Harrier Vertical/Short Take Off and Land (V/STOL) fighter aircraft and the new Sea King Mk 42B Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) helicopters were inducted. What does "operationalize" mean?

• put into operation

• Not a real word; rephrase it to clarify that the ship was being modified to operate the new aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Though the Alouettes/Chetaks were embarked in 1960s, continued operated until the ship was decommissioned in 1997. What does this mean? That they were operated continuously aboard the ship?

• Yes, the squadron operated aboard and so were the aircraft.

• "Introduced" not inducted.
• Again, spell out Cheema's full name.
• You cannot use the semi-colon as a header because screen-readers for the visually impaired cannot handle them; change them to the standard header markup.

• cant't get you, can tell me where it is exactly.

• ;Footnotes Delete the semi-colon for both footnotes and citations and add two equal signs before and after the names. You'll also have to delete the Notes header, which you can use as an example.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've made a lot of changes to expedite this review, see if they work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Link cantonment.
• Be sure to respond to my question about the quote that's highlighted above.
• As you can tell, the bulk of my review was spent correcting grammar, which isn't my favorite thing to do and is very time consuming. I'll be willing to review some of your other articles if you get them copyedited by the WP:GOCE first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Sturmvogel 66: Done. Thanks for the long review, will take do that from the next. Actually could have a look at Kodandera M. Cariappa which was copyedited by the guild. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• OK, fix the one thing above about flying aircraft aboard in '71 and we'll be done here. I'll take a look at Cariappa to see if it's something that I'm comfortable reviewing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Sturmvogel 66: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• @Sturmvogel 66: Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)