Talk:Japanese destroyer Keyaki (1944)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Zawed in topic GA Review
 | Japanese destroyer Keyaki (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: December 6, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese destroyer Keyaki (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 Keyaki (1944)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 10:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- In the infobox, the stricken and fate fields aren't used which is unusual
- the Second Fleet on 1–20 April suggest "the Second Fleet from 1–20 April"?
- Presumably no links for the Destroyer Squadron and/or Division?
- I don't think that I have anything that even lists the various squadrons and their divisions, so not even a redlink.
- The division was disbanded suggest specifying which division, presumably Destroyer Division 53?
- Yep, the last one mentioned.
- Japanese personnel in 1945–1947 suggest "Japanese personnel from late 1945 to 1947"
- Rohwer is listed in the bibliography but not actually cited.
- Image tags check out OK, but I suggest putting the Keyaki one in the infobox rather than use the sister ship image.
That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am happy with this one so am passing as GA, I consider it meets the relevant criteria. Zawed (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)