Talk:Japanese ironclad Kongō/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 12:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Japanese sources universally give the same date for her keel-laying, but this seems improbable. - This sentence doesn't make much sense to me, what seems improbable exactly? You may need to rephrase there. Gatoclass (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ship was assigned to the Small Standing Fleet in 1885 and the ship made port visits to Port Arthur and Chefoo in China and Jinsen in Korea the following year - this would seem to contradict the statement that the ship was launched in 1877. Gatoclass (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Two different decades.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - must have stayed up too late that night. Apologies for the delay in getting back to this review BTW, have been busy off-wiki in the last couple of weeks, I'll try to get this one wrapped up ASAP. Gatoclass (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've been forgetful about it myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I'm inclined to crop the frame from the painting, as it looks a bit cheesy to me - would you have any objection to that? Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, feel free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Okay, I think all the outstanding issues have been dealt with now. Thanks for your patience. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping,--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this - lots of off-wiki distractions recently. I have made a few tweaks to the prose to try and eliminate repetition, particularly of the phrase "the ship" or "the ships", and also to hopefully make the prose a little more accessible, as I found it a tad dense in places. If you have no issues with the changes, this one can probably be promoted now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're fine, although you're perhaps too fond of "sister ships" to my taste. I generally only use that phrasing on the first use and later shorten it to "sisters" thereafter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find "sisters" alone to be a bit confusing, and given that I am familiar with the concept of sister ships, I imagine it must be more confusing still for someone unfamiliar with it - still, it's probably not a biggie either way.

My one remaining concern at this point is the repetition of the term "the cruise" in the last paragraph. It's not clear to me why the definite article is needed here - why not just "a cruise"? Gatoclass (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was the annual cadet cruise, as opposed to an ordinary training cruise or deployment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have added that to the article for clarity. I will give this article the once-over later today to make sure I haven't missed anything before giving it the thumbs-up. Thanks for your assistance. Gatoclass (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a few discrepancies between the article and the infobox, namely: sold for scrap 1 April/20 May, ihp 2500/2450, guns 170 and 150 mm v. 172 and 152 mm, I cannot rectify these myself as I don't have access to the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]