Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Zuihō/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 00:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite - haven't gone through a Japanese warship in a while. Review incoming. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 13 January 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A few spots of issues with prose and the lead needs work.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   One question on a source

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • Too short. Needs another paragraph at least. Feels very skimpy compared to the density and size of the article.
    • How does it read now?
• Design:
  • "...were replaced by a pair of destroyer-type geared steam turbine sets with a total..." turbine sets? I would think "engines"?
    • Turbines are a type of engine. And they're turbine sets because they have multiple turbines in each "engine". Forex, naval turbine engines typically have multiple stages to extract the maximum amount of energy from the steam, including high-pressure and low-pressure stages, plus a reverse turbine. Often all within a single casing.
  • "Zuihō was not built with an island and could operate 30 aircraft." I assume "operate 30 aircraft at once"? Also, can we have a short explanation of what an island is?
    • How does it read now?
  • I note the recommendation on the talk page mentioning that there should probably be a mention of the usual number of aircraft embarked etc. How big was the hanger - i.e. what was her maximum capacity of aircraft that she could carry?
    • Hangar dimensions already provided. No information as to the mix or types of aircraft that she was designed to handle is available other than the simple number of 30. I've provided the composition of her air group wherever known.
• Service:
  • I'd think the bit about the conversion would fit better into the design section, which would eliminate the weirdness of discussing what happened after her conversion prior to the actual conversion.
  • "Her air group, 18 Zeros and eight D3As, was briefly deployed to Kavieng..." MOS says to not mix the numerals and words like this - so probably should be "Her air group, 18 Zeros and 8 D3As, was briefly deployed to Kavieng..."
    • This is where the damn MOS contradicts itself because it says numbers below 10 should be spelled out. Done.
  • Same deal with " fighters claimed to have shot down 25 American aircraft at the cost of eight of their own..." need that eight to be 8.
  • Do we have an article on the cracking of the Japanese Naval codes to link to with "The Americans had cracked the Japanese naval codes and positioned several submarines..."
    • Linked.
  • "From December to May 1944, the ship ferried aircraft and supplies to Truk ..." I think you mean "Zuihō" here for "the ship" but it's not clear which ship is meant because you've mentioned a number of different ships in the previous sentence.
  • "USS Enterprise" but "Independence" later? Consistency?
    • Different battles.
  • "The third wave arrived around 1300 badly damaged the ship." something's off here - suggest "The third wave arrived around 1300 and badly damaged Zuihō."
    • Fixed.
• General:
  • Have some repeat links here - Guadalcanal in the fifth paragraph of Service, Phillipines in the last paragraph of Service, Task Force 58 in Battle of Phillipine Sea. Also Phillipines, Formosa and Kyushu in the firat paragraph of Battle of Leyete Gulf and Luzon in the second paragraph of Battle of Leyete Gulf.
  • I'm assuming no salvage operations nor is it a diving location?
    • I'm not even sure if the wreck has been discovered.
• Sources:
  • It's been a bit - so forgive me if I've asked before, but what makes http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm a reliable source?
    • Primary author has published several books on the pacific campaign.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)