Talk:Japanese destroyer Teruzuki (1941)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese destroyer Teruzuki (1941)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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

• 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)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Japanese destroyer Teruzuki narrowly avoided being crushed during Kirishima's capsizing? Source: Cox, pp. 249–251; O'Hara, p. 128
  • ALT1: ... that Japanese destroyer Teruzuki was sunk from a single torpedo to the stern? Source: Cox, pp. 272, 308–309
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1961 Indonesian census

Improved to Good Article status by Sturmvogel 66 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 16:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Japanese destroyer Teruzuki (1941); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good to go. AGF on offline ref. Ergo Sum 01:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, and Discuss policy, Manual of Style and bad grammar

@Primergray: You made a lot of changes to the article in two edits. I didn't always agree with those in your first edit, but they were largely inconsequential. Your second edit introduced some WP:Manual of Style errors and grammatical faults. I reverted you in the expectation that you would then go to the talk page to discuss our disagreements as per WP:BRD. Instead you reverted my reversion, something that I did not expect an experienced editor like yourself to so. So I'll do it for you:

• MOS:DATERANGE states that overnight periods can be written with a slash like I did or an endash. You changed it to a hyphen
• I wrote something in which the IJN was far more experienced and you changed it to something which the IJN was far more experienced in which is just bad grammar, IMO
• You changed task to job; far too informal for an encyclopedia article
• You decapitalized Rear Admirals, ignoring the fact that their names immediately followed and violating MOS:JOBTITLE
• You changed my to find Kirishima to with finding Kirishima, a nominalization and something I was taught to avoid in my academic writing class
• You changed survivors to sailors, something that I think weakens the statement

I write every article with the expectation that someday I'll take them to WP:FAC so the MOS issues are likely more important to me than to you. Your other changes were either improvements or stylistic differences which don't bother me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)