Talk:Japanese battleship Fuji/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:18, 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):
Lead, "on the second day of the war with her sister Yashima." - Ambiguous - could be read as Fuji vs. Yashima.

I'd agree except for the fact that they're noted as sister ships.

Construction and career, Blackwall is a dab link

Fixed

Construction and career, "a Fleet review" - should "fleet" be lowercase?

Fixed

Construction and career, "spotted by the Invalid Optional Parameter which" - I think something went wrong here...

I'm not seeing this, where is it?

There was a screwy parameter, which I think I fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth thinking about splitting up the Construction and career section with at least one subsection. It's a bit of a wall of text, currently. Just a thought, however.

Thought about it, but there's no convenient dividing point towards the middle since that's all Russo-Japanese War.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Ref # 12 (Brook 1985, p. 269) - why is this the only book short ref to include a publication date?

Fixed

Ref # 18 (Tully) - What this is supposed to be a reference to? I can't find any other mention of "Tully" in the article.

Fixed

Howarth is in References but not Notes. Is there additional information that could be added from this source?

No, it was a legacy source that I couldn't get anything useful from (very badly titled book). Deleted.

Same as above for Preston.

Something useful added.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
A background section similar to that in Japanese battleship Asahi would be quite helpful to the general reader... Is there a reason one wasn't included here?

That's in the class article. Asahi was a unique ship so she got the full treatment.
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:Battleship Fuji.jpg needs a source.

I'll have to select a different image once they start displaying properly on my computer. Right now I'm getting an invalid link error for all images.

That was odd, but image swapped out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A few minor issues with prose, referencing and the image, but nothing major. Overall, nice work, and just a few tweaks needed before I promote to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the responses. Everything looks good at this point, so I am passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]