Talk:Japanese ironclad Fusō/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 19:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll review this article for GA, and should have my full set of comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Leads on articles of this length are generally at least two paragraphs, per WP:LEAD.

   • True, but since I don't see any point in adding technical information to the lede, what's left to cover? I'm happy to take suggestions, but I could maybe add a sentence or two and spit the paragraph into two very small ones if you'd prefer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

   • Armament and armor - " by the replacement of three 25.4-millimeter Nordenfelt guns by a pair of 2.5-pounder" -> "with a pair"? Generally you replace something with something else.

   • I've always regarded "by" and "with" as generally synonymous with regard to "replacing" something. "The X was replaced by new and improved Y" reads perfectly fine to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

   • Construction and career - "On 14 July, the general public" - maybe "beginning 14 July", as you can't have a week of something on one day. Same with "On 10 August 1881" later in the paragraph.

   • See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

   • Were any of her crew injured or killed when she sank?

   • No losses mentioned in any of my sources, but they don't generally address the issue so I'm not confident enough to add that to the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • I'm a little confused by the "subscription required" note on the Lengerer, Hans refs in the References section. This note is generally only used when a url is given and the linked website requires a subscription. If only a journal name and article title are given, it is assumed that one must get a subscription (or go someplace with a subscription, such as a library). This is the first time I've seen "subscription required" used on non-web-linked sources...

   • The source is only available from the editor and cannot be accessed through the usual journal subscription services, hence the note.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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):

   File:Japanese ironclad Fusō.jpg and File:Fuso.jpg needs sources, according to the tags on the images.

   • Found sources with better quality images.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall very good. A few minor points on prose, references and images, so placing the article on hold until these can be addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

   OK, looks good. Now passing to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)