Wikipedia:Peer review/Indian Navy/archive1

Indian Navy edit

This article require a Peer review to make it an almost perfect article.

Chanakyathegreat 15:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect is hard. Hopefully I can help some, though:

WP:LEAD -- the lead provides context, but not a summary.
As is, the lead also contains statement that should be sourced to guarantee WP:NPOV. Namely: "is well-armed relative to other navies worldwide" and "is considered one of the best navies in the world" are fairly redundant and, in any case, should be qualified.
The section "History of the Indian Navy" could be expanded. Some details, especially about Kunjali Marakkar and Kanhoji Angre, would make the sentences feel less disjointed.
"Major Conflicts" does not have a neutral point of view. Phrases such as "the opposing Pakistan Navy took a severe beating" and "the Indian Navy proved its superiority by routing the enemy" are not unbiased.
I don't understand "Navy Personnal": it lists "various ranks of officers within the Indian Navy", including Admiral of the Fleet. But then below the list it says "Indian Navy does not have Admiral of the Fleet." Isn't that a contradiction?
"Fleet reviews" explains when they happened, but not what they are.

The article still needs some work. It generally lacks detail, which makes it seem disjointed and list-heavy. There are a number of paragraphs with just 1-2 sentences. First, though, I would focus on NPOV. -- bcasterline • talk 16:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how's it going? Overall, a pretty good article. Some things that I think need improvement:

-The lead needs to be expanded. Right now it is too short.

-The History and the Major conflicts sections should be merged.

-There are way too many list-heavy sections. Would it not be possible to create daughter articles for these and move this information there? That way there would be a lot more summary style left in the article, which is what's best.

-Finally, try to get more in-line citations. An article of this size deserves more than 8.UberCryxic 16:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:* "Major Conflicts" does not have a neutral point of view. Phrases such as "the opposing Pakistan Navy took a severe beating" and "the Indian Navy proved its superiority by routing the enemy" are not unbiased.

The above statement seems correct since it is the truth. In the name of Biasing hiding the truth will not be good. Chanakyathegreat 17:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can write something factually without flaunting it. I've changed the wording somewhat, but I'm unfamiliar with facts of the conflict, so please verify that I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning. -- bcasterline • talk 17:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certain sections updated according to the good suggestions. More will follow when time allows. Chanakyathegreat 17:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few remarks:

The lead is short. See WP:LEAD.
Section 7 is huge and with too many sub-sctions. The layout is really bad.
Some sections are too listy.
For FA you need more inline citations ...

I haven't read the article in detail. When I do it, I'll come back with suggestions concerning the content.--Yannismarou 20:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again provided for a Peer review after changes. I get confused by certain wiki terms. So please be specific when providing suggestions. Thanks Chanakyathegreat 12:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]