Talk:Chinese cruiser Nan Chen

Chen Nan

Just to be aware, there was also a similarly named Chen Nan gunboat around at the same time, which was active in the First Sino-Japanese War. This was actually the renamed Eta of the Epsilon gunboat class. I thought I should make the note here, as at first I thought it was simply "Nan Ch'en" but reversed. It isn't the case. Miyagawa (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chinese cruiser Nan Thin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 16:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

1. tweaked a couple of spaces for clarity. Please confirm that it's what you intend.
2. it would be helpful to have a picture of an exemplar. it doesn't have to be this ship, but a ship similar to it, for example.auntieruth (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Just jumping in here as the original expander. I've just added a link to the Commons category for the ship type, however the reason why no images have been added is because I'm not sure which of the two ships appear in the photos and also each image has the website's logo that they were taken from. I'm still keeping a look out for better images to add. Miyagawa (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Miyagawa Perhaps ask some of the editors who work on a lot of ships' articles. You can find them here; in particular Iazyges, Parsecboy, and Sturmvogel_66 are active. auntieruth (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I had a look at history.navy.mil, but it didn't have any images of this ship. There were a few of other Chinese cruisers, though, so it's worth keeping in mind for those articles. Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• I had a poke around: The sister ship, Nan Shui, has an image that is already in commons at File:Nanthing3.jpg. Hopefully that helps. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Iazyges, Parsecboy, and Sturmvogel_66 I've added it and passed the article. auntieruth (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know that image is usable in its current state - we have no publication info, so we have no proof it's PD in the United States, nor do we know what its copyright status in China is (I have no clue what Chinese copyright law is, how current law treats Qing-era images, etc.) I would advise removing it until we have answers to those questions. Parsecboy (talk) 14:11, 27 June 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: