Wikipedia

Talk:Nagato-class battleship/GA1

< Talk:Nagato-class battleship
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Anotherclown in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 22:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Progression

edit
  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

edit

Criteria

edit
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • Doesn't sound quite right to me: "The IJN conducted an perfunctory investigation...", should this be: "The IJN conducted a perfunctory investigation..."
      • Indeed.
    • In the lead: "In mid-1946, the ship was a target for nuclear weapon tests during Operation Crossroads." Just wonder if a little context is needed here? Consider for instance: "After the war, the ship was a target for US nuclear weapon tests during Operation Crossroads in mid-1946."
      • OK.
    • "The IJN had considered a battle fleet of eight modern...", abbrev IJN needs to be introduced here.
      • Introduced in the lede.
    • Wording seems a little off here: "Although the United States Navy planned to arm its Colorado classs with 16-inch (406 mm) guns before the Nagato class was designed, Nagato's 41-centimeter (16.1 in) guns made her the first dreadnought to be armed with guns larger than 15 inches (381 mm) to be launched." Perhaps consider instead: "Although the United States Navy planned to arm its Colorado classs with 16-inch (406 mm) guns before the Nagato class was designed, Nagato's 41-centimeter (16.1 in) guns made her the first dreadnought launched to be armed with guns larger than 15 inches (381 mm)." (suggestion only)
      • I like it.
    • Seems a little informal here: "... to stop any fragments from penetrating the innermost bulkhead protecting the ship's vitals...", consider "vital areas" instead. (suggestion only)
      • It's a pretty common phrasing in ship books, but vital areas is probably clearer.
    • Tense: "An additional boom was added to the mainmasts of both ships in 1926 to handle the Yokosuka E1Y now assigned to them." Consider instead: "An additional boom was added to the mainmasts of both ships in 1926 to handle the Yokosuka E1Y then assigned to them."
      • Yes.
    • Wording seems a little awkward here: "...naval arms race between the United States, the United Kingdom and the Empire of Japan that was beginning to get underway." Consider instead something like: "...naval arms race between the United States, the United Kingdom and the Empire of Japan that was developing..." (suggestion only)
      • Much better phrasing.
    • "Mutsu was specifically listed among those to be scrapped...", scrapped should be wikilinked at first use (you use "scrap" in the preceding sentence).
      • Good catch.
    • Repetitive language here: "Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto issued the signal "Niitaka yama nobore" (Climb Mount Niitaka) on 2 December 1941 from Nagato at anchor at Hashirajima to signal..." (signal twice), suggest: "Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto issued the command "Niitaka yama nobore" (Climb Mount Niitaka) on 2 December 1941 from Nagato at anchor at Hashirajima to signal..."
    • Missing word here I think: "She only lightly engaged during the battle and was not damaged nor suffered any casualties...", consider: "She was only lightly engaged during the battle and was not damaged nor suffered any casualties..."
      • Sigh.
    • In the body (similar issue to the lead): "Nagato was selected to participate as a target ship in Operation Crossroads, a series of nuclear weapon tests held at Bikini Atoll in mid-1946." Think it would be a good idea to clarify that the were "a series of US nuclear weapon" tests" for context.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • All major points cited using WP:RS.
    • No issues with OR.
    • Minor issue with inline cite here: no. 34 "Hackett, Kingsepp, & Ahlberg", which entry in the ref list does this refer to? I'm assuming the one for Nagato? Can this be clarified?
      • Both actually.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    • Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
    • Level of coverage seems appropriate.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation):   b (all significant views):  
    • No issues here.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
    • No issues here.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned):   b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):   c (non-free images have fair use rationales):   d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:  
    • File:Mutsu20.jpg lacks a source - are you able to add one?
    • File:Nagato 1939.jpg also lacks a source and some other information in the template. Can this be completed?
    • Japanese language source for File:Japanese Battleship Nagato 1944.jpg accepted in good faith.
    • Otherwise rest of images appear to be PD or licensed and seem appropriate to the article.
      • Not much I could do here as the sources are generally unknown, but I did clarify a couple of licenses.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nagato-class_battleship/GA1&oldid=575715860"