Talk:Nagato-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

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

Progression

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

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd).
• Alt text: Images all lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: one duplicate link:
  • bridge
    • Removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

• 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..."
    • I think code phrase is better still.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 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.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • A high qlty article as usual. Just a few prose points and some sources for images req'd. Happy to discuss any points you disagree with of course. Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the delay, I thought that I'd bookmarked the review page. Thanks for your patience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)