Talk:Mochitsura Hashimoto/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 09:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be taking this review. I'll start off making some preliminary points and doing a quick review, then once we sort all that out we'll move onto the template. Any questions feel free to ask! Retrolord (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing all those Ed. I'll get started on a formal review now. Retrolord (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	All seems good but im a bit worried about this sentence "Assured he would be treated as a naval officer instead of a prisoner of war or war criminal, Hashimoto nonetheless remained under guard during his time in the United States" Could you reword it to make it flow better? Happy to hear what you think if you disagree. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Also this "Hashimoto took the stand" Could this be in a more encyclopedic tone? just seems to be too coloquial to me, but its only a minor issue. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues that I can see.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Do you think this clashes with the unnecessary detail criteria? "and over objections from Cady and McVay." Is it important enough to mention? Removed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Still a bit to do, such as the image fair use checks and such, but no major problems i can see arising that would stop this passing. Retrolord (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks again for looking at this! —Ed!^(talk) 01:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]