Talk:Japanese battleship Hyūga/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 07:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I will be starting this review shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)		Pass
(b) (MoS)	To my eye the article is overlinked. Perhaps you could have a look at the MoS and let me know what you think?	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)		Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	A shame that Lengerer is behind a paywall, but policy is relaxed and otherwise everything is fine.	Pass
(c) (original research)		Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)		Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)		Pass
(b) (focused)		Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)		Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Would it be possible to move the 3 images in the gallery to appropriate places in the article?	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	A fine, detailed, well sourced article. A lot of work has clearly gone into this. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

• Cleaned out the overlinks and moved the gallery pictures into the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Some queries and suggestions on the prose.

"here she decoyed the American carrier fleet". "here she helped to decoy..."?

"Hyūga participated in Operation Kita, where she transported petrol". "when" or "during which" instead of "when"?

"The ship was then reduced to reserve until she". I am not sure here, but in the UK we would write "the reserve".

"The Ise class was designed as improved versions of the preceding Fusō class." "an improved version" - class is singular.

"despite the additional weight added." You only need one of additional or added.

"On 29 August, the ship began the first of numerous patrols off the Siberia coast". Siberian coast or coast of Siberia.

"her No. 5 turret exploded... The turret was deemed not repairable and was removed." A little later: "The ship's No. 5 and No. 6 turrets were replaced by a hangar surmounted by a flight deck." At which point was No. 5 turret removed?

Aichi E16A. It may be worth pointing out at first mention that they are float planes?

Minor: "Hyūga became the flagship of the Fourth Carrier Division, now commanded by the recently promoted Rear Admiral Matsuda, two days later." reads a bit oddly. Maybe put "two days later at the start?

"Two days later, the 634th Naval Air Group was reassigned to the Second Air Fleet and began flying to bases in Southern Kyushu, among these were nine D4Ys and a dozen E16As assigned to Ise and Hyūga." A clunky sentence. Possibly break at the comma?

How about a semi-colon instead of the comma?

"were assigned to the Main Body of the 1st Mobile Fleet" Is there any reason why main body is capitalised?

Hackett capitalizes it. It's actually hard to figure out from the sources whether Main Body is a formal sub-division of the 1st Mobile Fleet or just a name for the main force.

"but the battleship is not a primary target." was, not is.

"Fragments from near misses by bombs damage the ship's anti-torpedo blister". damaged.

Personally I wouls change "(0.99 mi)" to "1 mi)".

"Hyūga was reduced to first-class reserve." Again UK usage would have a "the".

"Kusagawa was one of the over 200 sailors killed and 600 wounded by the attack." Was Kusagawa killed or wounded?

Thanks for your thorough review. I've followed most of your suggestions, see if things work for you where I've gone my own way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. More than fine. You resolved everything I consider important, plus a couple of things which I noticed but didn't think serious enough to flag up at GA level, plus a couple I hadn't noticed. It reads very well now I think.