Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Un'yō/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 15:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ping!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • damaged by an American submarine; mention the submarine's name
    • Not so important
  • she was sunk by another submarine; same as above
    • That is important enough
  • Please mention that she was renamed after being transferred to IJN. Because there is a chance for confusion on when was it renamed.
    • Done.
• Section 1;
  • Please rename the section to "Construction and civilian service"
    • OK
  • Better to mention IJN in full on the first mention in the body
    • I don't see a need since it was spelled out in the lede.
• Section 2;
  • Un'yō's crew numbered 850 officers and crewmen -> Un'yō's crew numbered 850 officers and crewmen or Un'yō's crew numbered 850 "including" officers and sailors; because the reader may get confused thinking that it had 850 officers.
    • Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • All the units and conversions look good.

To be continued ... Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Section 3;
  • to the latter on 11 September; does "latter" refer to "Rabaul"
    • Yes.
  • red link "1st Fighter Regiment" "11th Fighter Regiment"
  • Good idea
  • 201st and 552nd Naval Air Groups; of whom? Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service, please mention.
    • I'd have thought that the "Naval" in their names would have made it clear that they belonged to the IJNAS
  • and four destroyers; can the class of these be mentioned?
    • Three Fubukis and a Kagero, although I don't really think it's important.
  • At 10 minutes after midnight; for consistency, it is better to mention the time in digits
    • OK.
  • Nearly six hours later; redundant, can be removed. Because time is already mentioned
    • OK.
• File:Yawata_Maru.jpg; may not meet the Fair use of policy, because another image available for primary representation of the subject. What do you think?
  • Found a legal photo as a replacement.
• No DAB link, External links OK.
• 8.3% confidence, violation unlikely.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 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) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)