Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Defence Academy alumni/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of National Defence Academy alumni

List of National Defence Academy alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Regards,
talk • mail) 10:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I am nominating this for featured list. The list has recently passed an

talk • mail) 10:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Resolved comments from §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC) (part 1)[reply]
Comments from Dharmadhyaksha:
  • Use Template:As of
  • Out of 74 entries tabulated, only 12 images are present in tables. There are some tables where there is no image column. In such cases of irregularities it is best to not keep any columns of images and simply add few selective images outside. (Example FL)
  • I would prefer calling the column "Notes" over "Notability". You may take second opinion on this.
  • I would also not prefer bulleting points inside that last column. Small complete sentences would be better. For example Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore's last column would shrink considerably and better still give lucidity in reading. You may take second opinion on this.
  • Param Vir Chakra list uses "Conflict" column. But Maha Vir Chakra's uses "Year". Try bringing consistency

More to come... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk mail) 14:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • @
    talk • mail) 11:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
talk • mail) 06:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Winning an award or being appointed on a certain position is not a qualifying factor. After finishing their studies in NDA, what field they joined in or not joined at all should be the more relevant factor of sorting out these people. All the posts they held or awards they received can always go in notes section against each entry. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk • mail) 06:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
All "lists of alumni" are always the "list of notable alumni". We do not include names of all students that have ever enrolled in. Check alumni lists like that of Washington & Jefferson College and University of Central Florida which are generic institutes where the alumni's are sub-listed per the field they went into. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk • mail) 06:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I won't count Army, Navy And Air Force as same professions. Waiting and more opinions are good. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged for my opinion- personally, I don't find the list confusing to navigate. I think that you could change it into three sections (army, navy, air force), but I'm not sure that you could combine everything in a section into one table, without abusing the "notes" column pretty severely to get the chiefs of staff to sort together and the peacetime award recipients to sort together, etc. It would be a lot of work. Also, checking other example FLs, they're not using that single-table format: List of United States Air Force Academy alumni, for example, is basically the "air force" section of this list, but then subdivides all the types of notable alumni into sections. Following that, you'd have to split this list into the three sections, and then have multiple subsections for each- at least 3 (chiefs of staff, wartime awards, peacetime awards). I don't think it would be much benefit, if any, for the work. --PresN 17:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another advantage of 3 list proposal would be that no two entries will be listed twice (unless someone in rarest case joins both Army and Navy or such). In this format, S. K. Kaul is listed twice. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk • mail) 08:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I still don't see why we need to have award-winners and non-award winners separated out. People took admission here, either went into one of three fields or simply contributed to "other fields". That should be the end of categorization as is concerned with this institute's alumni list. How successful they were by grabbing awards or securing positions is immaterial to the alumni list. That's just peacock-y for the institute maybe to highlight the achievements on their website but is of no encyclopedic value much. Take for example following lists with their subsections like filmographies (feature films, documentaries, plays, tv shows, advertisements, webseries, etc.); literary works (novels, short stories, poems, screenplays, etc.); awards (Academy, Emmy, Nobel, Padma, etc.).... Filmographies are not subsectioned as award winning and flops; literary works are not subsectioned as adapted-into-films and non-adapted-into-films; awards are not subsectioned as for acting, for writing, or such.... They all seem to follow a proper categorization which is missing here.
This should be my last comment on this point and if that isn't sufficient enough to hit the point then I give up for this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk • mail) 12:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Resolved comments from §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC) (part 2)[reply]
Comments from Dharmadhyaksha:
  • There are way too many acronyms used like PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, VSM, ADC which haven't been noted in full in beginning text or footnotes or such. Yes they are wikilinked on first instance but we should not want readers to surf out every time.
  • My point above of not mentioning titles has been taken care of only in the list but titles still remain in prose sections.
  • The subsection "Other notable alumni" should simply be "Others" as the whole list is of notable alumni.
  • Checklinks is giving errors for few references which needs to be sorted out.
  • I don't think www.haryana-online.com, which anyways is deadlink, meets
    WP:RS
    .
  • Bikram Singh and Sushil Kumar are disambig links.
  • Main image of Sudan Block is missing
    WP:ALT
    .
@
talk • mail) 10:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Nick-D

  • The article seems miss-titled: this is a list of notable graduates, not all graduates of this institution.
  • How many graduates have there been in total? (a point in time figure would be OK for giving readers a feel for this if nothing very recent is available)
  • Added.
  • How large and exclusive is this institution? Is it like the Australian Defence Force Academy, which is attended by the great majority of people who go on to become officers in the Australian Defence Force, or is it highly selective? - this is needed to help readers understand why the subject of this list is important.
  • Yes it the same way.
  • The article lists graduates who are notable for being successful. Surely some graduates have also achieved notability for failures? (eg, graduates convicted of prominent crimes, commanders of highly unsuccessful operations, individuals who unsuccessfully ran for election, etc).
  • No such cases of crime have been reported till date, that are notable enough to have an article on wiki.

Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yet the article includes individuals who received awards which were not sufficient for them to be considered individually non-notable. I don't accept that none of this academy's graduates have become prominent for negative reasons: such a claim certainly wouldn't be correct for Australia's much smaller and newer equivalent. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk • mail) 03:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk • mail) 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Given that it seems that a very high proportion of Indian officers go through this Academy, the fact that a small sub-set go onto high ranks or are awarded high-level awards isn't surprising: this is exactly the background you'd expect for such people. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk • mail) 12:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "it is the world's first tri-service academy.[1][2]" worth adding the year of foundation to this statement, e.g. "Established in 1954 and located in Khadakwasla, near Pune, it is the world's first tri-service academy"
  • Khadakwasla redirects to a Dam, not a location.
  • What is "Gaya"?
  • "such as Medical Corps, Dental Corps, Postal Corps, Judge Advocate General's Department. " grammar, needs an "and" before the final department.
  • " in which the Indian Armed Forces have been called into action" "in ... into" repeat.
  • " three Param Vir Chakras, 31 Maha Vir Chakras and 160" per MOSNUM, comparable figures, that three should be a 3.
  • Spell out the table notes in the footer of the table rather than send them to a notes section.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk • mail) 12:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk • mail) 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]


Resolved comments from NitinMlk (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC) (Part 1)[reply]
Comments by NitinMlk:
  • You removed it, which made the awards & course no. details unsourced. But they can be easily sourced. e.g. for "PVSM, AVSM, ADC" bit, you can cite this or this; for course no., you can cite this. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After removal of this source, we are left with another unreliable source – ref 114 – which isn't providing any NDA-related info. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 120 & 128: allaboutsikhs.com is again a user-generated source with no editorial control.
  • After removal of ref 120, we are left with another unreliable source – ref 115 – which isn't providing any NDA-related info.
  • After removal of ref 128, we are left with ref 121 & ref 122. The ref 121 is unreliable & doesn't give any NDA-related info. The ref 122 is a book & I can't access the cited page, i.e. page no. 238. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 11 & ref 46: these two might have been considered reliable, provided "the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff", as per
    WP:UGC
    . But that isn't the case here.
  • You replaced ref 11 with the current ref 10, which doesn't support the content. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 7 is yet another user-generated source, as it has no editorial control at all.
  • You removed it but didn't provide its replacement. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 99: the book is of Kalpaz Publications. Books of this publication are normally mirrors of Wikipedia. For details, please see here. So, they are normally discarded here, although I will leave it to others to decide its reliability. - NitinMlk (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After its removal, we are left with ref 95, which is unreliable & isn't providing any NDA-related details. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk • mail) 12:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess you replaced one source & removed the remaining ones. As yesterday I just glanced over the references, I will check it tomorrow whether the existing sources are supporting the content. Unfortunately, I can only spend a little time at wiki today. Meanwhile, you can look below for some more comments. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the changes done by you & provided some feedback above. Unfortunately, this list requires extensive work to source it reliably. In fact, I have no ideal how it became A-class, esp. with this sort of sourcing. It clearly doesn't meet
WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk • mail) 00:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk • mail) 13:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, if you are referring to the discussion started by me at the WP:RSN, then please read it again at here. There wasn't any support for it. User-generated sources like twdi.in are removed on sight.
I just revisited the article. You have cited the couple of reliable sources suggested by me. So, I've crossed my second point. But all the other issues are still unresolved, although you did add the archive versions of the twdi.in. BTW, you are doing very good work. But please stay away from these day-to-day websites & blogs. And please carefully read
WP:UGC. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk • mail) 05:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
And who ran that trust? I guess you neither carefully read the WP:RSN link provided by me nor the WP:UGC. As I mentioned at the WP:RSN thread, this "website was run by "a group of Sainiks", i.e. by a group of soldiers.... We neither know regarding its editorial control nor about the credentials of the editors." In fact, we don't know anything about those people. You could create a website right now & claim to be a group of anonymous soldiers. But that won't make your site reliable. You have to understand that these type of websites/blogs can only be used here if "
the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." In fact, I've already explained this straightforward point to you. But I guess you just don't want to accept it. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk • mail) 14:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, we didn't discuss the source between us. I discussed it at
WP:RSN, which is the proper forum for establishing reliability of any source. I did all those extra efforts to just clear your misconception. In fact, I thought by now you would've have made some efforts to reliably source the above list. But you didn't try to replace even a single problematic source. It's actually quite disappointing. As I mentioned earlier, the above list requires extensive efforts to make it reliably sourced. Till then it should be degraded to CL-Class. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk • mail) 12:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk • mail) 14:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: You seem to have a hard copy of Chakravorty's book, as its online preview isn't showing any page beyond the page no. 163. So, please add the relevant lines/phrases in the citations – under the Quote field – so that others can verify the claims. BTW, from the present preview of the book, it's clear that it doesn't contain any NDA-related information. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk • mail) 06:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, this will take care of the NDA-related content. And I guess the cited book will take care of the rest, although I can't see some of the cited pages in the online preview. So, it seems you've successfully replaced twdi.in. I will strike the relevant comments tomorrow after looking at the list. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, today I can't spend much time at wiki. I just glanced at the lead & it seems ref 10 & ref 11 aren't supporting the relevant content. So, please try to fix that. But the list seems completely free from unreliable sources. And I guess you are very close to resolving my comments. I will look at the list tomorrow. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Please consider all of my previous comments as resolved & collapse them. Now I will start checking the list from the top & keep on commenting about subsequent sections once you resolve my pending comments. Following are the comments pertaining to the lead & the Chiefs of staff section:

  • Ref 10 doesn't support the relevant content.
  • Ref 11 doesn't support the relevant content.
  • The last line of the lead states: "The NDA has produced 28 service chiefs of staff, including the incumbent chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy and Air Force." As
    Dalbir Singh
    is no longer the COAS, "Army" should be removed from the above sentence.
  • Chiefs of staff section's opening sentence – "As of October 2016, the academy.....are NDA alumni." – should be updated, as Gen. Dalbir Singh is no longer incumbent service chief.

Following comments are pertaining to the Chiefs of the Army Staff subsection:

@
talk • mail) 08:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Resolved comments from NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC) (Part 2)[reply]
Comments by NitinMlk:
  • Ref 10 doesn't mention anything about OTA, Gaya. So, it can be replaced with this source, which has the relevant details.

Following comments are pertaining to the Chiefs of the Army Staff subsection:

  • Remove ref 20, which isn't serving any purpose in the list, as it is related to the stock market.
  • Notes field of Sunith Francis Rodrigues states that he was 15th COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong. In fact, he was 16th COAS, for which you can cite this source.
  • Notes field of Bipin Chandra Joshi states that he was 16th COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong. In fact, he was 17th COAS, for which you can cite this source.
  • Notes field of Shankar Roy Chowdhury states that he was 17th COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong. In fact, he was 18th COAS, for which you can cite this source.
  • Notes field of Ved Prakash Malik states that he was 18th COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong. In fact, he was 19th COAS, for which you can cite this, this, or this source.
  • Notes field of Sundararajan Padmanabhan states that he was 19th COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong. In fact, he was 20th COAS, for which you can cite either this or this source.
  • Notes field of Nirmal Chander Vij sates that he was 20th COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong. In fact, he was 21st COAS, for which you can site this, this or this source.
  • Ref 32 states that J. J. Singh was 22nd COAS. But the Notes field states that he was 21st. So, it should be corrected.
  • ref 34 states that D. Kapoor was 23rd COAS. But the Notes field states that he was 22nd. So, it should be corrected.
  • Notes field of S. F. Rodrigues states that he was 32nd governer of Punjab. But the 32nd bit is unsourced, for which you can cite either this or this source.
  • According to 40 ref & 41 ref, Bikram Singh was the 25th COAS, but the Notes field mentions him as the 24th one. So, it should be corrected.
  • Notes field of Vijay Kumar Singh mentions that:
  • he was 23rd COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong, as he was 24th COAS, for which you can cite either this or this source.
  • he is a "Member of Indian Parliament for Ghaziabad", which is unsourced. You can cite this source for it.
  • he is a "Minister of State for Statistics and Programme Implementation", which is again unsourced, for which you can cite either this or this source. Both of these sources – and the ref 38 – also mention that he is the minister of Overseas Indian Affairs, which should be added to his notes.
  • archived link of ref 38 needs some fixing.
  • Notes field of this subsection repeats Chief of the Army Staff twelve times. I guess we should just write Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) at the first mention & then write COAS at the next eleven places, per
    WP:MOS#Abbreviations. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
talk • mail) 03:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:CITEPAGE#Other_in-source_locations. You can also give the relevant quotation from the book in the citation's |Quote= parameter. BTW, all of these dozen or so sources took some digging & I couldn't find any better one for Rodrigues/Joshi. Anyway, tomorrow I will check the list & will provide further comments. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I must say that you need to work on your sourcing skills. I made my first set of comments here on 13th December & they were focusing on the Maha Vir Chakra subsection, where subsequently replacement of unreliable sources took place. That means the other sections – which we are discussing now – were full of unsourced/wrong information from the very start of this review. It seems that you just copy-pasted content from the existing wiki articles to this list without noticing that those articles were also unsourced, e.g. Chief of the Army Staff (1955–present) section has the same mistakes which the above subsection had. So, please don't forget to provide a reliable source for whatever content you add on this wiki. Anyway, I am providing some comments about the next subsection. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following comments are pertaining to List of National Defence Academy alumni#Chiefs_of_the_Naval_Staff subsection:

  • Notes field of Laxminarayan Ramdas states that he:
  • was 13th CNS, but the 13th bit is unsourced. So, please add a relevant source.
  • won Ramon Magsaysay Award, which is again unsourced, for which you can provide this source.
  • Ref 53 is a user-generated source, which is written by a user named "Webmaster 1". In fact, it isn't serving any purpose in the list. So, please remove it.
  • Notes field of Vishnu Bhagwat states that he was 15th CNS, but the 15th is unsourced.
  • Ref 15 states that Sushil Kumar won UYSM, but his Awards field doesn't mention that.
  • Notes field of Sushil Kumar mentions that he was 16th CNS, but 16th bit is unsourced.
  • Notes field of Madhvendra Singh mentions that he was 17th CNS, but 17th bit is unsourced.
  • Notes field of Arun Prakash mentions that he was 18th CNS, but 18th bit is unsourced, for which you can cite this source.
  • Notes field of Sureesh Mehta mentions that he was 19th CNS, but 19th bit is unsourced, for which you can cite this source.
  • Ref 64 & ref 65 are redundant as other refs are covering the content. So, remove them.
  • Ref 66 isn't showing the relevant details. So, please add its archived version, i.e. this one or this one.
  • Ref 68 is redundant, as other refs are covering the content. So, remove it. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga these comments have been here for over a week, are you continuing with this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk • mail) 13:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk • mail) 11:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, with your latest edits, you replaced 13/14/15/16/17/18/19th CNS with 'Former CNS'. I have already provided sources for 18th/19th CNS in my previous comments. So, at least use them. Anyway, tomorrow I will properly look into your latest changes & the subsequent sections. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, I just glanced at the next subsection, i.e. Chiefs of the Air Staff. The '15th'/'16th'/'17th' bit in the Notes field are unsourced. So, please add relevant sources. Ref 81 mentions that Pradeep Vasant Naik was 19th CAS while the Notes field mentions that he was 22nd. So, please correct it. And don't worry about my previous comments. I will cap them in a day or two. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk • mail) 14:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, the designations in question – Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), Chief of the Naval Staff (CNS), & Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) – were introduced by The Commanders-In-Chief (Change in Designation) Act, 1955. Obviously the government of India and all other reliable sources count them from 1955. So, there's no confusion regarding that. Still you can mention that fact in a footnote if you like. BTW, in the present case, the title of the subsection is Chiefs of the Air Staff, which makes it clear that all of the entries were CAS in the past. Therefore, mentioning them as Former CAS in the Notes column is reduntant. Same is true regarding the previous subsection. So, I would encourage you to find relevant sources, rather than using the redundant Former bit.
PS: I will be shifting to a new location tomorrow. And I guess it will take few days before I log in again. So, please try to resolve other users' comments in that time. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk • mail) 16:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delegate note: this nomination is getting close to being closed for being stalled; see if there's any way you can get some more supports or comments soon. --PresN 00:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk • mail) 04:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_National_Defence_Academy_alumni/archive1&oldid=1086102540"