Talk:Japanese battleship Hatsuse/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 23:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action action required).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required).
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues [6] (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • A bit repetitive here: "Tōgō had expected his surprise night attack on the Russians by his destroyers to be much more successful than it actually was and expected..." Perhaps reword?
    • How does it read now?
      • Yes thats better.
  • Inconsistent presentation of armaments here: "Japanese 8-inch (203 mm) and six-inch guns..." Is this MOS compliant? You've been writting these articles for a while so I imagine there may be a reason that I've missed.
    • Six inch had been converted earlier, but eight inch hadn't.
      • Makes sense - I knew you had a reason.
  • This seems a strange construction to me: "inflicted very little significant damage." Perhaps consider: "inflicted very little damage of any significance..." (suggestion only)
    • As you might have noticed, I use "little significant damage" a lot and am surprised that you find it infelicitious. I don't believe that it's improper English, but I'm happy to use your formulation as my sense of language is not always the best.
      • Its more the "very little" followed by "significant", just seems counter-intuitive to me. I've actually tweaked this further as I didn't like my own suggestion, so pls review my change. If you don't like it just go back to the original wording.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All major points cited using WP:RS.
  • Consistent citation style used throughout.
  • No issues with OR.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues here AFAIK.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • All recent edits look constructive.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Looks good to me, only a couple of minor points above to address / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Passing now, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)