Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 18:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one if nobody minds? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 18:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Parshall & Tully, pp.</ref>" I'd fix it for you but I have no idea how. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 18:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal to have a class overview in the infobox above info directly relevant to the subject? It just seems a bit strange to me, is there a precedent you have from other ship article? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 16:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a single-ship class, so it gets a class infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" the only other carrier to share this feature was the Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi" The only other Japanese carrier with that design, or the only one in history? Could you please clarify? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That bit was some legacy text that I meant to clean out, but obviously forgot. The island is properly discussed in the flight deck and hangars section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"6,000 kg (13,000 lb)" Thats the wikicode for one of your measurements. I'm not too sure how to change it so I wont but I think the imperial and metric measurements are the wrong way around. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" was only 1 inch" Could we remove the "only"? It implies that this is somehow insufficient or below average. if that is the case could you sya it directly? Otherwise can we remove it? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Hiryū returned to Japan on 7 August and began a short refit" Last thing I can see in the article before passing. What exactly did the refit entail? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 19:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not given in my sources, probably just general repairs and cleaning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to overlook it then. Article passed. Have a nice day, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 19:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.