Talk:Japanese ironclad Kongō

Japanese ironclad Kongō has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 5, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese ironclad Kongō article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Japanese ironclad Kongō appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Japanese ironclad Kongō was one of the two ships that returned the survivors of the wrecked Ottoman frigate Ertuğrul to Turkey in 1891?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese ironclad Kongō.

Wikipedia

Military history: Maritime / Asian / Japanese

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Asian military history task force
	Japanese military history task force

Japan: Military history Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 02:46, May 17, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: Kako River (Japan)
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Japanese ironclad Kongō is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese ironclad Kongō/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 12:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Japanese sources universally give the same date for her keel-laying, but this seems improbable. - This sentence doesn't make much sense to me, what seems improbable exactly? You may need to rephrase there. Gatoclass (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ship was assigned to the Small Standing Fleet in 1885 and the ship made port visits to Port Arthur and Chefoo in China and Jinsen in Korea the following year - this would seem to contradict the statement that the ship was launched in 1877. Gatoclass (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Two different decades.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - must have stayed up too late that night. Apologies for the delay in getting back to this review BTW, have been busy off-wiki in the last couple of weeks, I'll try to get this one wrapped up ASAP. Gatoclass (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've been forgetful about it myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I'm inclined to crop the frame from the painting, as it looks a bit cheesy to me - would you have any objection to that? Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, feel free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Okay, I think all the outstanding issues have been dealt with now. Thanks for your patience. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping,--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this - lots of off-wiki distractions recently. I have made a few tweaks to the prose to try and eliminate repetition, particularly of the phrase "the ship" or "the ships", and also to hopefully make the prose a little more accessible, as I found it a tad dense in places. If you have no issues with the changes, this one can probably be promoted now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're fine, although you're perhaps too fond of "sister ships" to my taste. I generally only use that phrasing on the first use and later shorten it to "sisters" thereafter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find "sisters" alone to be a bit confusing, and given that I am familiar with the concept of sister ships, I imagine it must be more confusing still for someone unfamiliar with it - still, it's probably not a biggie either way.

My one remaining concern at this point is the repetition of the term "the cruise" in the last paragraph. It's not clear to me why the definite article is needed here - why not just "a cruise"? Gatoclass (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was the annual cadet cruise, as opposed to an ordinary training cruise or deployment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have added that to the article for clarity. I will give this article the once-over later today to make sure I haven't missed anything before giving it the thumbs-up. Thanks for your assistance. Gatoclass (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a few discrepancies between the article and the infobox, namely: sold for scrap 1 April/20 May, ihp 2500/2450, guns 170 and 150 mm v. 172 and 152 mm, I cannot rectify these myself as I don't have access to the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]