Talk:Shikishima-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations: The Citation Check tool revealed one error with reference consolidation:
- Forczyk, p. 46 - Multiple references contain the same content Done
Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required).
Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action required).
Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues [6] (no action required).

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
- barbettes should be wikilinked at first use.
  - It was linked in the armament section and in the armour section. I've removed the latter.
- This seems a little awkward to me: "Diagonal bulkheads connected the barbettes to the side armor, they were 12–14 inches (305–356 mm) thick, but only six inches thick at the lower deck level." Perhaps consider something like: "Diagonal bulkheads connected the barbettes to the side armor, which were 12–14 inches (305–356 mm) thick, but only six inches thick at the lower deck level."
  - I rewrote the whole sentence as I think that it, and your reformulation, could confuse a reader about what was actually 12-14 inches thick. See how it reads now.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- All major points cited using WP:RS.
- Consistent citation style used throughout.
- No issues with OR.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- No issues here AFAIK.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
- Images used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
- The article looks in good shape to me, only a couple of very minor points above. Anotherclown (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should all be done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes those changes look fine. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]