Jump to content

Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Un'yō/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]


Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Section 2;
    • Un'yō's crew numbered 850 officers and crewmen -> Un'yō's crew numbered 850 officers and crewmen or Un'yō's crew numbered 850 "including" officers and sailors; because the reader may get confused thinking that it had 850 officers.
    • All the units and conversions look good.
To be continued ... Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]