Talk:Japanese battleship Tosa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues preventing promotion

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

You need to explain what IJN means the first time you use it.
The sentence "A light signal mast esd placed directly behind the second barbette." doesn't make sense.
"compared with other similar ships," - "other" is redundant in this case.
Is the numerical list a quoted order? if so can you make that clearer eith in the description or with the use of quote marks or similar?

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

The lead could be expanded a bit with some of the ship's basic specifications: planned tonnage, no. of guns etc. to give a clearer picture of how the ship would have appeared.
How deep is Tosa? Is it a dive site?

Response: As one of the WP:OMT participants, I've taken the liberty of fixing up your raised issues - with the exceptions of whether or not it's a dive site (a quick Google suggets not), and whether the list mentioned is a quoted order (as, not having the reference referenced, I can't say). But the rest of the issues should be cleared up now. - The Bushranger (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re dive site, I have no idea; I have not been able to find anything on where the wreck is outside of vague references to Saiki Bay and the Bungo Channel. Re list, what do you think of using {{quotation}}? [1] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good improvements, the article is looking very nice and is ready for GA (don't worry about the dive stuff, it was only an optional extra!).--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]