Talk:Japanese cruiser Sakawa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • A comma (,) after "After the war"
  • to be expended in "for" nuclear weapon tests
  • 1939 Fiscal Year; not necessary, more over fiscal years vary from country to country

• Section 1;
  • Looks good, consistency maintained, all the parameters—Displacement, Length, Beam, Draft, Power, Propulsion, Speed, Armament and armor—seem fine. Conversion templates and links are in right place.
  • and one aft; add wiktionary link to "aft"
• Section 2;
  • I am bit confused with the last lines of the first paragraph; "the squadron was assigned to Operation Ten-Go" "originally scheduled to accompany the battleship Yamato with her sister ship Yahagi" "no fuel available for them to participate in the mission". I am unclear whether "the squadron was on low fuel, and so they were sent to the Ten-Go, instead of accompanying the battleships" or "As the battleships were on low fuel, this squadron was sent in their place"? Please make the clearer.
    • See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Red-link "Fanna" if there is no article.
  • formally turned over to the United States Navy; See if "handed" sounds better than "turned"
  • A comma (,) after "dismal working conditions aboard"
  • The second weapons test, Baker; is "Baker" the test's name? Why is it in italics?
• Note 10; Make it "Tully 2016" for consistency
  • Why? No other refs use a date, nor is there any other source that it could be confused with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Copyright violation unlikely
• All images OK.

Nice work. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Yexstorm2001, most of these have already been made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ping!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2018 (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) 05:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)