Talk:Chinese cruiser Chaoyong/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 04:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Section 1;
  • larger Ironclad warships; de-capitalize "I" in "Ironcald"
  • Flat-iron gunboats; de-capitalize "F"

• • along with a higher muzzle velocity main battery to attack larger,^[2][3] more cumbersome foes – very similar to the principles of Jeune École; This sentence is a bit confusing. The dash must be unspaced em dash. Who is Jeune École? "more cumbersome foes" is a bit awkward.
  • Why is the context of Chilean Navy brought in here? Please explain clearly. Is there is any agreement between the governments to use the ship's model or it was just copied?
  • Charles Mitchell; some context on nationality and profession
  • Conversion for 5.1-inch guns; also remove -
• Section 2;
  • 15 July that year; "that year" may be removed
  • They were both completed; "They"? Please be clear; the ships are never mentioned in this section
  • 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph); abrreviate
  • Chinese torpedo boat? Is the name of the boat available?

• Remove "the" before the ship names wherever used in the article. Use of article before proper nouns in not correct.
• Images are good.
• All units in the infobox must be abbreviates (out of GA criteria)
• 3.8% violation
• No dab links and all external links are good.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Thanks for reviewing, I think I've addressed all those points. I thought I'd managed to make the changes from the Yangwei review on the Chaoyong, but it appears that I missed more than I fixed! The only thing left outstanding is the name of the Chinese torpedo boat - unfortunately the sources never named the particular boat, and there was more than one involved in the battle. I could add a note to state that as much and name each one? Miyagawa (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2016 (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:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)