Jump to content

Talk:Japanese cruiser Agano

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

organization

[edit]

Cruisers are listed directly in Category:Cruisers of Japan and indirectly through its by-class subcategories. Also certain of these same cruisers are directly in Category:Cruisers of the Imperial Japanese Navy and indirectly through its by-class subcategories. Is there some purpose in this duplicative structure? Hmains (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese cruiser Agano/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 08:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


As expected, this article is in good shape. A few comments:

  • link=on the power in the body to link kW?
  • I think there is a space missing in "41st Year Type15-centimeter (6 in) guns"? Perhaps "41st Year Type 15-centimeter (6 in) guns"?
  • perhaps just clarify that the TTs were on deck not in the hull if that is right?
  • I think the lang|ja set-up creates an odd effect. Perhaps just italicise it?
    • Me too, but I'm trying to cater to the visually impaired who need screen readers which can decode the language template rather than just say "italicized".
  • perhaps mention in the body that the Guadalcanal operation was Operation Ke?
  • is there a link for the Mobile Fleet?
  • perhaps I'm being a bit dim here, but suggest "In response to the American carrier raid"
  • suggest "The leading destroyer division of four destroyers"
  • "Agano and her sister" needs italics
  • suggest "Four days later, the American aircraft carriers"
  • boiler rooms is a dab
  • "the American submarine Albacore"
  • "from her escort"→"from Urakaze
  • "and her sister took" which one was that?
  • "by the American submarine Skate
  • a location for Stille would be nice, but not required at GAN

Otherwise all good. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]