Talk:Japanese battleship Mutsu/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 08:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

This 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
  • "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
  • "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)Reply
    • Agreed. Thanks for the review.

Assessment

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. 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)Reply
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: