Talk:Japanese submarine I-179/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 13:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Something under, rather than on, water - a nice change!

Trivial questions:

• Question: this article uses KD7, the class article uses KD VII. This caused minor confusion for me linking the two (I know... I am slow). Is this an important discrepancy?
  • I don't think so, I'll go in at some point and clean up the (sub)class article.
• Is it relevant to document specifically how I-179 (and other KD7's) were different from previous sub-classes?
• IMO, the specifics belong in the (sub)class article where they can be covered in greater detail.

Key Question:

• There is very limited information about this ship; the design & description is relevant to all KD7's and so the only custom content is career. Given that she had no career, this seems limited. In fact, pretty much all of the unique content from this article is sourced to a single, short, page. Is there not a case for simply dealing with I-179 in the class article?
  • There's certainly a case for doing exactly that, but then there'd just be a bare mention that she was lost on trials without further information such as given here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than that question the article looks fine from a prose/source perspective. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that the class article could be structured to accommodate that information. However, I suppose that can happily be addressed when you get to the class article :) Will pass this as GA for now as there is no rush. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)