Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Un'yō/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 15:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Lead and infobox;
- damaged by an American submarine; mention the submarine's name
- Not so important
- she was sunk by another submarine; same as above
- That is important enough
- Please mention that she was renamed after being transferred to IJN. Because there is a chance for confusion on when was it renamed.
- Done.
- damaged by an American submarine; mention the submarine's name
- Section 1;
- Please rename the section to "Construction and civilian service"
- OK
- Better to mention IJN in full on the first mention in the body
- I don't see a need since it was spelled out in the lede.
- Please rename the section to "Construction and civilian service"
- Section 2;
- Un'yō's crew numbered 850 officers and crewmen -> Un'yō's crew numbered 850
officers and crewmenor Un'yō's crew numbered 850 "including" officers and sailors; because the reader may get confused thinking that it had 850 officers.- Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- All the units and conversions look good.
- Un'yō's crew numbered 850 officers and crewmen -> Un'yō's crew numbered 850
- To be continued ... Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Section 3;
- to the latter on 11 September; does "latter" refer to "Rabaul"
- Yes.
- red link "1st Fighter Regiment" "11th Fighter Regiment"
- Good idea
- 201st and 552nd Naval Air Groups; of whom? Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service, please mention.
- I'd have thought that the "Naval" in their names would have made it clear that they belonged to the IJNAS
- and four destroyers; can the class of these be mentioned?
- Three Fubukis and a Kagero, although I don't really think it's important.
- At 10 minutes after midnight; for consistency, it is better to mention the time in digits
- OK.
- Nearly six hours later; redundant, can be removed. Because time is already mentioned
- OK.
- to the latter on 11 September; does "latter" refer to "Rabaul"
- File:Yawata_Maru.jpg; may not meet the Fair use of policy, because another image available for primary representation of the subject. What do you think?
- Found a legal photo as a replacement.
- No DAB link, External links OK.
- 8.3% confidence, violation unlikely.
- Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: