Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of National Defence Academy alumni

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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of National Defence Academy alumni[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. The list is currently a B-class list. As a next step, I am nominating the list for A-class review. The list has a good lead and prose for individual sections have been expanded during the B-class review. Each and every alumni have been referenced with reliable sources. Also the prose content in the lead and individual sections were referenced. The list also holds considerable importance in the scope of WikiProject India as National Defence Academy is of top importance. As the article has undergone a copy edit by GOCE, I don't think there will be much issues with the grammar and MOS. Please suggest any further improvements needed regarding citations, style, structure etc. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 11:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: G'day, just a quick comment at this stage: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing system currently appears to be inconsistent. For instance "Bahukhandi 2004, p. 13" (which uses the sfn template) with "B.C. Chakravorty 1995, p. 166" and "Shankar Prasad (2005). The Gallant Dogras: An Illustrated History of the Dogra Regiment. New Delhi: Lancer Publishers with the Dogra Regimental Centre. p. 132" which do not. These (and the other examples) should be harmonized for consistency. I will try to come back later once this has been resolved. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: I have fixed the issue. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ping AustralianRupert to voice his opinion after the improvements are made. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the References should be in alphabetical order (based on the author's surname);
in the References, some works have a place of publication, and some don't. Please make this consistent;
"File:Air Chief Marshal Nirmal Chandra Suri.jpg": the date parameter on the image description page should refer to when the image was created, not when it was uploaded
I suggest cropping the borders off a few of the images to improve their visual appeal
question: are there single-service academies also, which serve as officer producing establishments? If so, I think a few brief mention of them might be needed to improve the context. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: I addressed all the issues except the last one. Yes, in India we do have single-service academies also, which serve as officer producing establishments. They are Indian Military Academy (IMA), Officers Training Academy (OTA), [[Indian Naval Academy (INA) and Air Force Academy, Dundigul (AFA). Actually NDA produces officers, but they are not commissioned from NDA. After 3 years of training at NDA, the army , the navy, and the air force cadets proceed to IMA, INA, and AFA respectively, for their further training, and they are commissioned from the same. Apart from NDA cadets, these academies including OTA accept cadets at different levels for officer training. In this context, what is the information about these would you suggest me to mention, and where? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I think you just need to differentiate the alumni of this academy v. others. Actually, the system sounds very similar to that which exists in Australia (I think). It seems that not all officers go to NDA, just like ADFA here in Australia. Is this correct? So, perhaps you could make this clear in the lead? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Yes, you are correct. NDA and ADFA are similar to each other. So do you want add information about cadets proceeding to the their respective service academies after their training at NDA and all about that? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I think probably just mentioning and linking the single service academies in the lead would be sufficient, and maybe making it clear that not all officers attend NDA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Please have a look at the lead, and I request a tweak if needed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my support as all my points have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I wasn't sure what "notable" means in "Notable recipients include" and "Other notable alumni"; it should probably be made clearer why you're mentioning them and not others. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: I have used the phrase "Notable recipients include" in three sections; Vir Chakra, Kirti Chakra, and Shaurya Chakra. Actually these are the third highest wartime, second highest peacetime, and third highest peacetime awards of India. They have been awarded many and articles of all those subjects don't exist on Wikipedia. So I mentioned those who have articles (which means they meet the notability guidelines). And for "Other notable alumni" section, it includes the subjects who made significant contribution but not covered in any of the above sections in the article, for example Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore was an Olympic medalist, and also a union minister in India, so he is worth mentioning. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support What a ridiculously comprehensive, well-organized, and well-sourced list. I fully support with ovation. LavaBaron (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:NDA_Insignia-1956.gif: source link is dead, 313.6 suggests that that tag applies to text materials rather than images
The Indian Army permission link used by most of the images says that the images can be reproduced; it does not say under CC BY-SA, which includes other rights and obligations. Where does the CC BY-SA designation come from?
File:ACM_Arup_Raha,_CAS.jpg appears to be an official image. Same with File:Admiral_Verma.jpg, File:Gen_Dalbir_Singh,_COAS.jpg
File:Arun_Prakash.jpg: how do we know that the subject was the copyright holder and that he has released it under the given license? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I have adjusted the parameters wherever required, and removed images where there is an ambiguity of licensing, source etc. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you're still running into a problem of disconnect between the source site and the tag. The source site says reproduction is allowed with attribution. It does not specify that eg. derivative works are allowed - it says "reproduction", which wouldn't typically include remixing. They may have intended some sort of CC license to be understood from the text there, but without those details we can't assume that. Your final image is also currently nominated for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I couldn't get you exactly, it would be good if you could elaborate. I modified the licensed as per the images that have been reviewed by a commons administrator. Example go here and here. These were taken from the Indian Army website, and the license that is presently used is put by a commons admin. So I've used it for others also. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, what the website says is allowed and what we say is allowed are not the same thing. The website says we can copy the image if we credit the source. With the tag used, we are saying that plus we say we can create derivative works using the image. My concern is that we are drawing inferences from the website that it doesn't actually say. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: How about the following license, CC BY 2.5 IN? And the attribution will be Indian Army /Air Force /Navy, whatever applicable. If not this, I request you to suggest the most appropriate license. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there is an appropriate license with the given information, unless we can confirm that "reproduction" is meant to encompass derivative works as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: What would you suggest now? I am not a master at image policies as you are. So I request you to suggest me a way out of this. Actually the licensing template that is presently used is placed by a commons administrator and also on an enwiki admin, I ping Magog the Ogre to follow up this discussion, so we can find a solution. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One solution would be to contact the department directly and ask whether derivative works are allowed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: But that would take a long time. However, I'll contact them and also I've started a discussion on commons, A new copyright tag for files from the official websites of the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force. For material from Indian Air Force website, I think commons has already a template, it would be good. Please see that. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Please look over the list. I removed the non-free images. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2016 (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.