Talk:Japanese battleship Mutsu/GA1
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 08:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments
editThis article is in great shape. I have the following comments
- "Mutsu loaded supplies from Kyushu for the victims on 4 September" - can something more precise be said about this? (Kyushu is a big island, so can the port be identified?)
- I've added the bay where they anchored.
- "she sank the hulk of the obsolete battleship Satsuma on 7 September 1924 during gunnery practice in Tokyo Bay in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty" - this is a bit unclear; the destruction of Satsuma was in accordance with the treaty, but the document didn't specify that she needed to be sunk as target practice as this sentence implies
- She had to be sunk or scrapped, which is why I used weaker language like "in accordance" rather than "required". Happy to take suggestions if you have any.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Captain Mitsumasa Yonai, later Prime Minister of Japan" - his name isn't linked
- Good catch.
- The paragraph which begins with "During the war Mutsu saw limited action" is currently unreferenced
- Hate when I do that.
- The sentence which begins with "n July 1944, the oil-starved IJN" also needs a reference
- Ditto
- The final section states that some artifacts are located in "shrines", but doesn't identify these
- The Yasukuni Museum is on the grounds of the Yasukuni Shrine.
- Yeah, but it's very much a museum (albeit one promoting some dodgy history), and not a shrine. Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- True. Shrine removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it's very much a museum (albeit one promoting some dodgy history), and not a shrine. Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Yasukuni Museum is on the grounds of the Yasukuni Shrine.
- "It is not the No. 4 turret raised from the wreck in 1970 because it was photographed in 1947" - this doesn't seem necessary given that the source of the turret is identified in the previous sentence Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Thanks for the review.
Assessment
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- The photos should all be PD, but some don't have any clear sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail: