Talk:Japanese battleship Mutsu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 08:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

This article is in great shape. I have the following comments

• "Mutsu loaded supplies from Kyushu for the victims on 4 September" - can something more precise be said about this? (Kyushu is a big island, so can the port be identified?)
  • I've added the bay where they anchored.
• "she sank the hulk of the obsolete battleship Satsuma on 7 September 1924 during gunnery practice in Tokyo Bay in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty" - this is a bit unclear; the destruction of Satsuma was in accordance with the treaty, but the document didn't specify that she needed to be sunk as target practice as this sentence implies
  • She had to be sunk or scrapped, which is why I used weaker language like "in accordance" rather than "required". Happy to take suggestions if you have any.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Captain Mitsumasa Yonai, later Prime Minister of Japan" - his name isn't linked
  • Good catch.
• The paragraph which begins with "During the war Mutsu saw limited action" is currently unreferenced
  • Hate when I do that.
• The sentence which begins with "n July 1944, the oil-starved IJN" also needs a reference
  • Ditto
• The final section states that some artifacts are located in "shrines", but doesn't identify these
  • The Yasukuni Museum is on the grounds of the Yasukuni Shrine.
    • Yeah, but it's very much a museum (albeit one promoting some dodgy history), and not a shrine. Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
      • True. Shrine removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• "It is not the No. 4 turret raised from the wreck in 1970 because it was photographed in 1947" - this doesn't seem necessary given that the source of the turret is identified in the previous sentence Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Thanks for the review.

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The photos should all be PD, but some don't have any clear sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: