Talk:Chinese cruiser Zhiyuan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lead;
  • she was Captained by; decapitalize "C"

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 1;
  • Suggest renaming the section as "Design and description"

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • who were known as the leading builder of this type of vessel during this period -> known to be the leading builder of this type of vessels during this period

• Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • hydraulics is over linked

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • 6-inch (15 cm); remove "-"

• That's part of the template output. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • 2 inches (5.1 cm), 8-inch (20 cm); abbreviate. Also in the infoxbox

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Captain's cabin; decapitalize "C" and also throughout the article check this issue. "Captain" must be used only when it is used a prefix for the name, for example, Captain Smith, else it just "captain"

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 2;
  • on the 20th; remove "the"

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • What about the commissioning dates?

• Unfortunately I've got relatively few details about commissioning dates for Chinese ships of this period. I've got no doubt that there were commissioning ceremonies, as there was a keeness to replicate the various Western naval procedures. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • William M Lang; is to be "William M. Lang", per MOS:LASTNAME

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • cut short the rank promotion details of Lang, they are out of context

• Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 2.1;
  • with Zhiyuen and the armored cruiser Jingyuen grouped together -> with Zhiyuen and her sister ship grouped together

• • By 2:00pm -> By 2:00 pm, use nbsp, per MOS:TIME

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Dingyuan is over linked
  • A flying squadron of Japanese vessels, flying squadron? Do mean aircraft?

• I've removed flying - it doesn't really need it. I think it simply meant that it was a squadron of ships that moved and fought together within the fleet. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • the armored cruiser Jingyuen;

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • attention to Zhiyuan and the armored cruiser Jingyuen -> attention to Zhiyuan and her sister ship

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • 10 inches (25 centimetres); abbreviate

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • 3:30pm -> 3:30 pm

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • American Philo McGiffin, captain of the Zhenyuan; I believe that Deng is the captain, there is bit confusion in the sentence, please rephrase

• Yep, you're right. I think he was a captain, not the captain. I've simply changed it to say he was simply on board. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • delete "a large and sometimes vicious animal"

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 3;
  • Deng and the Zhiyuan appear in the 2003 Chinese television series; correct the tense

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• • two-year-long; drop "-"

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• 41.9% confidence, violation possible.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, I'll get these edits done over the weekend. But I'll get that copyvio fixed right away. It was inherited from the previous version of the article, but it's my own fault as I didn't check it. Miyagawa (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that's the copyvio fixed. It still comes up as 18%ish, but that's based on a quote. Miyagawa (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Ok, I think that's everything sorted now. Miyagawa (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (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) 03:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)