Talk:Japanese battleship Asahi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll just go on a battleship binge tonight... Should have comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
American or British English? I see both armor and armour, program/programme, etc.

British. I think I caught all of these, but let me know if any remain.

Lead, "based at Shanghai, China and Camranh Bay, French Indochina" - This reads as if she was based at both places simultaneously.

Fixed

Background - First sentences is quite long, and would probably be better split into two.

See how it reads now.

Background, "for the four remaining battleships of the programme.[3] Asahi, the fifth of these battleships," If there were four remaining, there can't be a fifth...

Rephrased, but she was the fifth of the six battleships authorized in the program, 2 of which had already been built.

Design and description, "The hydraulically powered mountings could be loaded at all angles of traverse while the guns were loaded at a fixed angle". I don't understand this sentence. Why would you load a mounting? My confusion is probably attributable to my layman status, but even a technical section such as this one should be accessible to us...

See how it reads now.

Construction and career, "struck the bridge (nautical) of Tsesarevich" What?

Fixed

Battle of Tsushima, "Asahi again followed the battleship Mikasa into combat," When had she done this before?

Battle of the Yellow Sea, now specified.

Battle of Tsushima, "and her speed was limited to 12 knots" Why did disarmament limit her speed?

Probably had some boilers removed, but source doesn't specify.

Battle of Tsushima, "One of her two funnel was removed was also removed," I think this sentence needs a bit of work...

Agreed

Battle of Tsushima, link Marco Polo Bridge Incident?

Battle of Tsushima, "Asahi was fitted with dummy wooden main battery fore and aft to resemble an old battleship" Why?

Not specified in source, but probably as a decoy.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
What is ref #1?

I believe it's the stanza of poetry from which the ship's name is derived. But I really couldn't say for sure.

What makes combinedfleet.com a reliable source? Also, there's a little "ƒ" at the end of the long ref version of this reference - is this a typo?

It's published by two noted historians of the IJN, Jon Parshall and Anthony Tully.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
File:HIJMS Asahi.jpg is missing...everything.

Replaced.

Except that the replacement File:Асахи.jpg is asserting life of author + 70 yrs as copyright. Because we don't know the author (or he's not listed), it is impossible to know if he died more than 70 yrs ago.

Deleted.

File:IJN Asahi 2.jpg is missing a source.

It's a postcard taken and published before the ship was disarmed in 1922, which means it's in US and Japanese copyright so a source would be great, but not necessary to confirm copyright status.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one is on the edge, because without a source, we have no way of knowing that this is in fact a 1905 postcard. However, it was obviously taken before the 1922 disarming, which puts it in the correct timeframe for copyright. Dana boomer (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now the main image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A few issues with references and images, and the prose gets a bit sloppy in a few places. Not too much work needed, though, and it will be ready for promotion. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good except for the one image issue I replied to, above (the replacement image is also non-copyright compliance, at the moment). Dana boomer (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, everything looks good. Now passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]