Jump to content

Talk:Japanese battleship Hyūga/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: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 07:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will be starting this review shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) To my eye the article is overlinked. Perhaps you could have a look at the MoS and let me know what you think? Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) A shame that Lengerer is behind a paywall, but policy is relaxed and otherwise everything is fine. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Would it be possible to move the 3 images in the gallery to appropriate places in the article? Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass A fine, detailed, well sourced article. A lot of work has clearly gone into this. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

Thanks. Some queries and suggestions on the prose.
"here she decoyed the American carrier fleet". "here she helped to decoy..."?
"Hyūga participated in Operation Kita, where she transported petrol". "when" or "during which" instead of "when"?
"The ship was then reduced to reserve until she". I am not sure here, but in the UK we would write "the reserve".
"The Ise class was designed as improved versions of the preceding Fusō class." "an improved version" - class is singular.
"despite the additional weight added." You only need one of additional or added.
"On 29 August, the ship began the first of numerous patrols off the Siberia coast". Siberian coast or coast of Siberia.
"her No. 5 turret exploded... The turret was deemed not repairable and was removed." A little later: "The ship's No. 5 and No. 6 turrets were replaced by a hangar surmounted by a flight deck." At which point was No. 5 turret removed?
Aichi E16A. It may be worth pointing out at first mention that they are float planes?
Minor: "Hyūga became the flagship of the Fourth Carrier Division, now commanded by the recently promoted Rear Admiral Matsuda, two days later." reads a bit oddly. Maybe put "two days later at the start?
"Two days later, the 634th Naval Air Group was reassigned to the Second Air Fleet and began flying to bases in Southern Kyushu, among these were nine D4Ys and a dozen E16As assigned to Ise and Hyūga." A clunky sentence. Possibly break at the comma?
How about a semi-colon instead of the comma?
"were assigned to the Main Body of the 1st Mobile Fleet" Is there any reason why main body is capitalised?
Hackett capitalizes it. It's actually hard to figure out from the sources whether Main Body is a formal sub-division of the 1st Mobile Fleet or just a name for the main force.
"but the battleship is not a primary target." was, not is.
"Fragments from near misses by bombs damage the ship's anti-torpedo blister". damaged.
Personally I wouls change "(0.99 mi)" to "1 mi)".
"Hyūga was reduced to first-class reserve." Again UK usage would have a "the".
"Kusagawa was one of the over 200 sailors killed and 600 wounded by the attack." Was Kusagawa killed or wounded?
Thanks for your thorough review. I've followed most of your suggestions, see if things work for you where I've gone my own way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. More than fine. You resolved everything I consider important, plus a couple of things which I noticed but didn't think serious enough to flag up at GA level, plus a couple I hadn't noticed. It reads very well now I think.

Additional notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.