Jump to content

Talk:Japanese cruiser Sakawa/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: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead and infobox;
    • A comma (,) after "After the war"
    • to be expended in "for" nuclear weapon tests
    • 1939 Fiscal Year; not necessary, more over fiscal years vary from country to country
  • Section 1;
    • Looks good, consistency maintained, all the parameters—Displacement, Length, Beam, Draft, Power, Propulsion, Speed, Armament and armor—seem fine. Conversion templates and links are in right place.
    • and one aft; add wiktionary link to "aft"
  • Section 2;
    • I am bit confused with the last lines of the first paragraph; "the squadron was assigned to Operation Ten-Go" "originally scheduled to accompany the battleship Yamato with her sister ship Yahagi" "no fuel available for them to participate in the mission". I am unclear whether "the squadron was on low fuel, and so they were sent to the Ten-Go, instead of accompanying the battleships" or "As the battleships were on low fuel, this squadron was sent in their place"? Please make the clearer.
    • Red-link "Fanna" if there is no article.
    • formally turned over to the United States Navy; See if "handed" sounds better than "turned"
    • A comma (,) after "dismal working conditions aboard"
    • The second weapons test, Baker; is "Baker" the test's name? Why is it in italics?
  • Note 10; Make it "Tully 2016" for consistency
  • Copyright violation unlikely
  • All images OK.
Nice work. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Yexstorm2001, most of these have already been made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2018 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]