Talk:Japanese battleship Haruna/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • What is the relevance of the future ranks of Haruna's commanding officers in this article? In my eyes, all they accomplish is a disruption of the prose.

   I have removed them. Cam ^(Chat) 07:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • It's not clear when the invasion of Manchuria took place from the text. Was it 17 months after singing the London Treaty, or 17 months after 1937, the date that immediately precedes the sentence? In a broader sense, is the Manchuria invasion relevant in this paragraph? It doesn't seem to flow logically here.

   Clarified. I think it is somewhat logical, because it also is a lead-up to Japan's withdrawal from the LON and the London Treaty (in fact, it was their entire reason), which was of great importance to Haruna's second reconstruction. Cam ^(Chat) 07:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • Did the ship participate in the Singapore operation mentioned in the "Prewar section"? The article jumps to early 1942 without mentioning Singapore again.

   Added a quick blurb. Cam ^(Chat) 07:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   Very helpful. The article doesn't leave us hanging anymore. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • The sentence beginning On 28 October 1935, Captain (later Vice Admiral) Jisaburo Ozawa assumed… makes sound like Ozawa rather than Haruna was assigned to the Third Battleship Division. Similar situation with the sentence farther down beginning On 25 January 1944, Captain (later Rear-Admiral) Kazu Shigenaga assumed…. I'm assuming Shigenaga took command when the ship was at Kure?

   Clarified. Cam ^(Chat) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • The section title "1943: Inactivity" doesn't seem to be completely accurate. After all the ship did do stuff, even if it ended up being inconsequential.

   Reworded to be more in-line with what I used on Yamato and Musashi. Cam ^(Chat) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • Peacock-ish phrase: elite veteran Japanese fighter instructors. Either reword or attribute/cite more closely.

   Cited. Cam ^(Chat) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • The phrase which were even or superior in performance to the F6F Hellcat should have an in-text attribution and/or a citation immediately following to substantiate the claim.

   Done. It's the same as the one at the end of the sentence, so I'll move it (double-cite). Cam ^(Chat) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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):

   • The images File:Haruna on trials.jpg and File:Haruna at sea.jpg indicate PD in Japan, but do not include a publication date to establish whether or not PD in the US (as noted in the tag on the file page).

   Fixed both. Cam ^(Chat) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • Also, the full size version of File:Haruna at sea.jpg is available.

   Re-uploaded. Cam ^(Chat) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Passed. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Other article comments and/or questions

• I'm wondering about the Kobe/Kôbe/Kōbe spelling. Since the WP article is at Kobe (with no diacritic), it seems like that ought to be the spelling used, but, when spelled with a diacritic, isn't it usually Kōbe" (macron) rather than "Kôbe" (circumflex)?
• Why no link to Sasebo in the lead?
• Links to Maya, Hiryu, and Soryu would be of high value.
• If possible, it would be nice to stagger image placement on left and right, per recommendations at MOS:IMAGE.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the items should be easily resolved. After they are addressed, I see nothing that would prevent this from passing. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)