Talk:Chinese cruiser Jingyuan (1886)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 1;
  • Suggest renaming the section as "Design and description"
  • who were known as the leading builder of this type of vessel during this period -> known to be the leading builder of this type of vessels during this period
  • hydraulics is over linked
  • 6-inch (15 cm); remove "-"
  • Captain's cabin; decapitalize "C" and also throughout the article check this issue. "Captain" must be used only when it is used a prefix for the name, for example, Captain Smith, else it just "captain"
• Section 2;
  • on the 20th; remove "the"
  • What about the commissioning dates?
  • William M Lang; is to be "William M. Lang", per MOS:LASTNAME
  • cut short the rank promotion details of Lang, they are out of context
• Section 2.1;
  • Laiyuan is over linked
  • In Zhiyuan's article it is mentioned that Zhiyuan was grouped with Jingyuen, her sister ship. But here it is mentioned that Jingyuen was grouped with Laiyuan
• o% confidence, violation unlikely

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Thanks, I've updated for each of those. I haven't responded individually as some of them would have been repeated from the Zhiyuan review. The reason for the discrepency in the pairings is that in modern pinyin translations, two of the Chinese ships from the period now have similar names - Jingyuen and Jingyuan. At the time they would have been different, as the then used Wade Giles translations identified them differently. At the battle the Chinese made two pairs each with a single armored cruiser and a single protected cruiser. So the protected cruiser Jingyuen was paired with Laiyuan, while the armored cruiser Jingyuan was paired with Zhiyuan. Miyagawa (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: Better to mention the same in a footnote to avoid confusion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Done. Miyagawa (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)