Talk:Japanese cruiser Iwate

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese cruiser Iwate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "Izumo and her half-sisters" - looks to be a copy-paste error

   "Over the course of the entire battle, Iwate was struck, including hits that burst in the water alongside, 17 times, but she was only lightly damaged by two hits that caused two compartments on the lower deck to flood" - this seems a little awkward to me. I might say "Iwate was struck 17 times over the course of the entire battle, including..." and probably split off the bit about the two hits that caused damage of any significance.

   I wonder if the WWI section really merits being split off, given that her only wartime action was in the early stages of the siege of Tsingtao. Thematically, the training cruises that followed fits in quite nicely with the last section.

   "On 26 June 1922, Iwate, accompanied by Izumo and Yakumo, began a circumnavigation of the world that took them to Hawaii, Los Angeles, California, through the Panama Canal to Rio de Janeiro, where the cadets viewed the Independence Centenary International Exposition commemorating Brazilian independence, Buenos Aires, Argentina and Durban, South Africa before heading home via the Indian Ocean, where they arrived on 8 February 1923" - this seems too long to me - I might split it after the bit about the Brazilian exposition.

   The ordering of the subsequent service section seems odd to me. I'd shift the line about Hirohito's review up into chronological order, after the line about Fushimi's time aboard the ship, and I'd move the 1924 refit to directly after the return from the world cruise.

   2 dupe links I see.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Any details on the damage to the ship during the Battle of Port Arthur and repairs thereafter? Seems a bit odd to go from being considerably damaged to escorting

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I do tend to try and stuff a quart-sized amount of information into a pint-sized sentence, don't I? Thanks for your valuable suggestions and I think that I've reworked everything. See how they work for you. I have no detailed information on her damage at Port Arthur, annoyingly enough, but she had ample time for repairs as it was almost a month later before she was tasked to do anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say you've been reading too much German, but that's my problem ;) Everything looks good to me now, great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)