Talk:Tosa-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Add some context for what Amagi is; right now the article assumes the reader knows about that ship

Done —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Akagi (which also should have a wikilink)

Done —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's inconsistent specification of tons in the article. The first part uses "ton" (without conversion) + one that was identifiable as long tons with a conversion to tonnes; The latter part uses only tonnes. All non-duplicated figures should have conversions.

There were a couple of typos where the class and the lead ship were referred to as Toga rather than Tosa. (If I was wrong to correct those please restore them.)

No, Parsec's caught me doing that before. My mind likes to transform "Tosa" to "Toga" every time I see it for some reason... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added in convert templates for the displacement figures in the infobox and the "design" section of the text. Parsecboy (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
I have no problem with the fair-use rationale for the line drawing, but others that take a more hard-line stance might take exception to the "no free alternative can be created"

I'll point those who take a hard-line stance to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Design 1047 battlecruiser/archive1 then. :-) Jappalang said "[...] As for the line drawing in Conway's book, I think it can qualify for fair use. Images of this theoretical ship by Wikipedia users would be running into the region of WP:OR. The ship or knowledge of its exact structure is not in existence; hence, creating it from one's guesses is an original thought that is not verified by reliable sources. Basing it off someone's idea would make it a derivative work. (A similar situation would be the Byzantine dromon in Byzantine Navy." —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice to know and file away in the recesses of my mind... — Bellhalla (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article. The inconsistency with the (long?) tons/tonnes is my biggest concern. Should be easy to resolve. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I'm passing. Good job, guys! — Bellhalla (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]