Jump to content

Talk:Japanese cruiser Tokiwa/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 16:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    One dupe link in the lead
    Watch ENGVAR, I see armor and armour
    I'd probably pipe the link to Steregushchiy so it matches the other ships mentioned in the article.
    "Tokiwa was third of six when..." - I know you're talking about Togo's line, but most will not.
    Added "in line", but I'm not sure if I should clarify that it's of the 2nd Division. What do you think?
    You could also pipe line of battle in - though I saw another reference to this earlier in the article, so the link should probably go there.
    Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Probably ought to give some context on the arrival of the 2nd Pacific Squadron - otherwise, readers will assume it's the ships from Port Arthur and Vladivostok
  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):
    File:Japanese cruiser Tokiwa.jpg - need a source for this
    Could find a source on Google image, but I'm not to concerned about this since it's obviously a postcard.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Thanks for looking this over; now I've got to go and make changes to all the other articles from which I copy-pasted major sections! I think that I've dealt with all your comments, let me know if there's anything that I missed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]