Talk:Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll do this one, comments to follow over next few days. Zawed (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Looks really good Nick, only two substantive points:

• Infobox: Shizuichi Tanaka is mentioned as a commander/leader but doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere in body of article.
  • I've added him in a note. None of the sources mentions him as having played an active role in this battle, but he was the overall commander Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Departure section: "in bands between 5000 to 7000 feet" for consistency with other measurements, shouldn't it be 5,000 to 7,000, plus conversions?
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Other stuff

• No dab links
• Dupe links: firebombing; night fighter
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• External links all work
• Images appear to have appropriate tags

Will check back in a few. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your review: I think that I've now addressed those comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, looks good. Completing checklist below and passing as GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.