Talk:Japanese destroyer Teruzuki (1941)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Hog Farm _Talk 01:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 17:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this one. I own Frank's and Hornfischer's works on Guadalcanal, so I'll go ahead and check to see if there's anything extra in there while I conduct the review. Hog Farm _Talk 17:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, although Cox seems to be pretty thorough trawling through earlier works. FYI, I'll probably be working on more Japanese ships lost during the campaign as well if that's of interest to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double-check boiler count - differs between body and infobox
I don't think it's necessary or all that useful to link Asagumo in consecutive paragraphs
- Nothing shows up on my duplicate link check regarding her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The long ref for Cox is never actually listed
Kodaka is likewise cited but never actually listed
On the other hand, Rohwer is listed as a source but is never directly cited
Sources all look reliable enough for GA
"escorting the three aircraft carriers of the Third Fleet" - Nevin doesn't mention three aircraft carriers

Frank has some rather minor differences, but nothing of import. Mainly stuff like giving one extra destroyer escorting Hiei or stating that the Santa Cruz Islands bomb that killed 7 was a hit or that Teruzuki probably didn't have torpedo reloads on the second stage of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Nothing really of note there; I trust Cox did their research thoroughly across multiple sources.

Looks fine other than the few points above. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda embarrassing all minor sourcing issues considering that I specialize in them! All fixed though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Asagumo links are to Japanese destroyer Asagumo (1937) and then Japanese destroyer Asagumo (1938) which redirects to the same article. Are these links intended to point to the same ship?
- So that's why the duplicate link checker didn't catch them.
Missing publisher for Cox
- Even more egg on my face.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.