Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Amateur radio frequency bands in India

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:50, 4 August 2008 [1].

---

Amateur radio frequency bands in India

I'm back creating featured lists after three long years. :) I managed to raise this article from nothing to a feature list candidate in less than a day. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please use wikitables (like at Help:Table#Using_the_toolbar) as it standardizes the format of the tables; it also adds lines to divide columns and rows for clarity. Gary King (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Added wikitable sortable class. Something new for me! =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Terrestrial service only." – period is not needed since this is not a full sentence
• What does the custom blue color for the table headers represent?
• Lowercase the header titles like "BAND" → "Band"

Gary King (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed #1. For #2 and #3, the colours and upper case are for stylistic purposes. Do all the tables need to be a dull shade of grey? =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the wikitable gray to be soothing. Also, I usually prefer that the color mean something; for instance, the table colors in a team list with the team's colors would be appropriate. The uppercase titles, I think it's easier to read if they are lowercased. Gary King (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The colours are WikiProject India theme, after the national colours of India (sky blue). This is more of style and formatting, so am leaving it as is. Personally, I find the grey to be very bland. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I know very less about this area and so read it. My opinion it is very good list. But, two widely used terms radio telegraphy and radio telephony are not linked in the article. Had to put them manually in the search box to understand them. --gppande «talk» 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, I've linked the two terms and added what they are at the first instance where they appear. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The sorting for "Wavelength" and "freq" columns do not work properly.--Crzycheetah 01:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for spotting it. I'm not sure how to fix them, so have placed a request on WP:VP. If nothing works, I'll probably remove them. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "licensed" vs "Licences" vs "License"....
  • "allots" - would allocates be better? That whole sentence is a little jargony, can you clarify for non-experts?
  • "clear the Amateur Station Operator's Certificate exam" do you mean pass it?
  • exam is a little casual - perhaps examination?
  • "(sending and receiving)." I'd unparathensise this and say ", both sending and receiving."
  • "Each class " what class? First mention of class - is this the same as the licence?
  • " The Short Wave Listener's Amateur Wireless Telegraph Station License allows listening on all amateur radio frequency bands, but prohibits transmission" but you don't say what privileges the others have - so either say "for example the Short Wave...", or go into further details on the other licence types.
  • Decapitalise the headings in the table and use Frequency rather than FREQ - no need to abbreviate.
  • I'd check out the {{sort}} and {{nts}} templates for help sorting your columns. If all else fails give me a shout and I'll fiddle around for you.
  • Wavelength col is very wide but the contents are very narrow!
  • Remove the capitalisation for EMISSION and BAND.
  • No need to relink AM in that table as it's non-sortable
  • "(Still images)" no need for that cap S, check the rest of those instances in the table.
  • "An emission designation is of the form BBBB 123 45" but in the table you have, e.g. A2A - I don't see how that fits the scheme. Am I missing something?
  • If you abbreviate Amplitude modulation, presumably you should do the same with Frequency modulation.
  • "12 years" + old.
  • All those headings, decap - and look at col widths again.
  • "50 W." - link to Watt.
  • I would expect sub band to be hyphenated.
  • "Authorization on non-interference and non-protection basis." what does that mean?!
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll look at resolving it tomorrow. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I've done just about all. Some comments:

• Wavelength column is wide because the header text "Wavelength" takes up all the space. I could use the symbol 'λ, but that would not be useful for a non technical audience.
• Adding the word "old" would be redundant. (12 years)
• Authorization on non-interference and non-protection basis lol, I have no idea what that means. I have asked amateur radio experts outside wikipedia to clarify.
• For emissions, I added an example. Let me know if this is sufficient to explain it.
• Was not able to sort the columns. Not sure if I was doing it right. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Sorting of table columns is inhibited by the fact that numbers are commingled with letters and symbols (such as dashes).
  • The main problem I see for the "Wavelength" columns is that columns including numerical values in both m and cm do not sort in the order that one would wish for. That could be fixed by converting all values to m (for example 80 cm would be 0.8 m), but I wonder if that is contrary to standard usage in this field.
  • Another issue is that the "50 W/25 W" in the Power column does not sort correctly. A possible resolution for that (which would be a nice improvement in general and also could help with sorting of the wavelengths) is to move the units to the heading (i.e., "Power (W)").
  • In the Frequency column, I think you are using full stops ("dots") as separators for the thousands column. This is contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Large numbers, and the effect is that the dots are being interpreted as decimal points.
  • Also in the Frequency column, does sorting improve if you add a space before and after each of the dashes?
• I don't like the way the "notes" appear in the tables. At some monitor resolutions, the entries in the "Power" column are forced onto a second line, with the word "note" on the first line and the note number on the second line. Appearance would be far better (and there would be less potential for confusion) if these notes were identified with letters instead (e.g., change "note 1" to "A"). If this cannot be done with a notation template that you are using, find a different template. (I know it can be done, as letters are used for notes in List of cities and towns in Tennessee.)
• Like some earlier commenters, I want to see more internal links in this article. Terms I see that might be candidates for linking include Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, aural telegraphy and electronic telegraphy, radioteletype, telemetry, remote control, facsimile, shortwave, satellite communication, and electronics. (I think some of these might be linked late in the article rather than the first time they are used. I suppose a case could be argued for linking some technical terms more than once...)
• Be consistent in spelling of licence/license. --Orlady (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review:

• I've linked up the terms as you have siggested
• Shortened the word "note" to "nb"
• Reduced the column "Type" to abbreviations
• Added W to the header
• In the frequency column, spaces are not recommended around an ndash as per WP:DASH
• Removed the lisense inconsistency
• No, the values in the frequency column are correct. The values are from 1 Mhz to 5 Ghz
• I've tried to use {{Ntsh}} now, but still the columns do not sort! :(

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also, why are the 5 licenses linked in their own sections? Do they not need to be linked in the header where they first occur? Like - Amateur Wireless Telegraph Station Licence --gppande «talk» 19:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  They should. I've wikified the first instance. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Alert: In this edit, which apparently was intended to remove the dysfunctional sorting, you made several other changes, including undoing some changes that you had made in response to comments here. The edit also made factual changes to the article. Were those changes intentional, or did you accidentally revert some edits you didn't intend to revert?
• Seeing those factual changes to the information about licencing exams alerted me to the lack of sourcing on the entire passage about licencing exams in the current version ("To obtain a licence in the first four categories, candidates must pass the Amateur Station Operator's Certificate examination, held monthly ... then have a police interview. After clearance, the WPC grants the licence along with the user-chosen call sign.") Can a source be added here? --Orlady (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• The change was a copy-paste from parent article Amateur radio in India. This FLC was a spinoff from that article which is coincidently on FAC. That article was copyedited by User:Tony1 diff, and so I pasted the new text here. With regards to references, the whole article is referenced by the 1978 rules (there is a table in the source, and I've only expanded on it). I've anyways gone ahead and added a citation for each licence category. I have also restored the wikilinks that were removed accidently. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am still concerned about unsourced text in the introductory section. That whole paragraph about when and where exams are given, what they consist of, etc., is sourced only to a Times of India article that doesn't appear to support any of the facts in the paragraph. Wikipedia articles can't be sources for other Wikipedia articles, so the borrowing from another article does not constitute proper sourcing. If this information is from the regulations, I think they need to be cited inline; the reader has no way of knowing that this is where the information is from. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure that the improvements made to these same passages in Amateur radio in India, in response to FAC discussion of that article, are also made in the list article. --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, see below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• You may be annoyed at me but, no links in header for Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. --gppande «talk» 08:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. They were here earlier, but they got deleted. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also how is REF3 from ToI related to the information for which it is used as ref? REF3 states how HAM operators help authorities in emergency but it is used on how to clear the exam and obtain license. --gppande «talk» 08:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ref 3 states that a licence can take 1 year to be obtained. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not too familiar with the topic so please forgive the odd question:
  • What does the number in the Band column refer to? 6 what?
  • "...over 16,000 licenced users in India" - the reference indicates the number should be lower.
  • "...must pass the Amateur Station Operator's Certificate examination, held monthly in..." - kind of sounds like someone has to take an examination monthly. If I understand the ref correctly, the licenses are only valid for 2 or 5 years before they have to be renewed.
  • The ref appears to give A2A to all "Grade II" frequencies, but the list here only gives it to 2.
  • "F2A" is listed, should it be F2B? -- maclean 01:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for reviewing and coming up with suggestions: I've put up a global response.

Global response

1. Linked Mumbai, Delhi and the other cities in the lead/
2. Add further inline citations to the lead.
3. Fixed the reference on "1 year to get the licence"
4. In an early draft it was 15,000. I think it got updated in a copy-paste. I have updated the reference to reflect 16,000 operators
5. Band is now mentioned in a small legend before the table in the "Alotted Spectrum" section. (ITU Radio Bands)
6. Split the sentences on held monthly as suggested
7. maclean, I would need some time to figure out those emission categories. (the last two comments) I had sourced that information from ABC of Amateur and Citizens Band by Rajesh Verma. There seems to be a few discrepancies in the two sources, and I would need to clarify them. For example, the WPC also lists A3X instead of A3C. A3X is meaningless as far as Types of radio emissions is concerned. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Update 2008-08-03

• Clarified and fixed those emissions that were raised by Maclean. Now made sure that they follow the 1978 documentation only. I had to consult four sources, as they all differed.
• Split the references in the text to include the Annexures/Appendices

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Everything looks good now. --maclean 19:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment All of my concerns have been resolved. --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.