Jump to content

Talk:Japanese battleship Fuji/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • Lead, "on the second day of the war with her sister Yashima." - Ambiguous - could be read as Fuji vs. Yashima.
    • I'd agree except for the fact that they're noted as sister ships.
    • Construction and career, Blackwall is a dab link
    • Fixed
    • Construction and career, "a Fleet review" - should "fleet" be lowercase?
    • Fixed
    • Construction and career, "spotted by the Invalid Optional Parameter which" - I think something went wrong here...
    • I'm not seeing this, where is it?
    • It might be worth thinking about splitting up the Construction and career section with at least one subsection. It's a bit of a wall of text, currently. Just a thought, however.
    • Thought about it, but there's no convenient dividing point towards the middle since that's all Russo-Japanese War.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Ref # 12 (Brook 1985, p. 269) - why is this the only book short ref to include a publication date?
    • Fixed
    • Ref # 18 (Tully) - What this is supposed to be a reference to? I can't find any other mention of "Tully" in the article.
    • Fixed
    • Howarth is in References but not Notes. Is there additional information that could be added from this source?
    • No, it was a legacy source that I couldn't get anything useful from (very badly titled book). Deleted.
    • Same as above for Preston.
    • Something useful added.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • A background section similar to that in Japanese battleship Asahi would be quite helpful to the general reader... Is there a reason one wasn't included here?
    • That's in the class article. Asahi was a unique ship so she got the full treatment.
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • I'll have to select a different image once they start displaying properly on my computer. Right now I'm getting an invalid link error for all images.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A few minor issues with prose, referencing and the image, but nothing major. Overall, nice work, and just a few tweaks needed before I promote to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the responses. Everything looks good at this point, so I am passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]