Talk:Japanese destroyer Hinoki (1944)
 | Japanese destroyer Hinoki (1944) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 5, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese destroyer Hinoki (1944) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese destroyer Hinoki (1944)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This one will be good. ♦ jaguar 14:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- The lead summarises the article and is well written. I see no issues here
- "led the two Australian ships, the frigate Gascoyne and the sloop Warrego" - shouldn't the HMAS prefix be inserted?
- "The radar of the destroyer Charles Ausburne" - USS here. The reader wouldn't have known which navy she belonged to
- "A starshell fired at 22:26 silhouetted" - Starshell links to an actress. I've fixed the link
Another solid article. I can't find any issues with this, so it's an outright pass. I enjoyed reading this one. 
♦ jaguar 01:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
On the reliability of "combinedfleet.com"
edit@Sturmvogel 66 and Jaguar: Two days ago, I removed the source combinedfleet.com, finding it to be a WP:FANSITE, including Japanese phrases like "Rapid net deployment warship!" (急設網艦！, Kyūsetsumōkan!) and "Warship seized!" (捕獲網艇！, Hokakumōtei!)[1] which seem … overly jubilant for a reliable source. The home page also features a forum and an advertisement for the book Shattered Sword.[2] Sturmvogel just reverted me, commenting that I would do well to look up who the site owners are. I have done so, and am not sure what I'm supposed to find to convince me that CombinedFleet.com is not a WP:Self-published source unsuitable for WP:V on Wikipedia. I'd like to request more direction from Sturmvogel. I loop in Jaguar as they GA-passed this article, so may have some insights. While I write Japanese to a perhaps “high-intermediate” degree, I am not an expert in its WWII-era Navy. However, I think my concern with this website's reliability is serious and shouldn't have been brushed off so easily. Neither Gilbert Casse, Berend van der Wal nor Peter Cundall[3] have articles, so I don't understand why this was so obvious to Sturmvogel that my concern could be reverted w/so little explanation. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ The kanji is not on the page, so I hope this at least demonstrates some Japanese proficiency.
- ^ Which may not be notable enough to pass WP:NBOOK, but I don't find that itself concerning enough to open an AfD given all my other tasks at the moment.
- ^ This is a blue link but it's the wrong Peter Cundall.
- @Psiĥedelisto and Jaguar: Jon Parshall and Anthony Tully are responsible for all content on Combinedfleet.com; both are published experts on the WWII-era IJN. You should have dived deeper into the site and visited [1] which would have alleviated your concerns about WP:SPS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66 and Jaguar: I see. Just to make sure I fully understand what you're saying: because Parshall and Tully exert editorial control over CombinedFleet.com, they fall under WP:RSSELF, which says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. ? It wasn't clear to me whether the owners of the site had anything to do with this page as they aren't mentioned on it, but I see now that on the about page you linked they have titles containing "Editor", which seems to satisfy the requirement that reliable sources have editorial oversight in my mind. Thanks for your explantion. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 09:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)