Talk:Japanese cruiser Kasuga/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 22:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several duplicate links which should be removed per WP:OVERLINK - Gun turret, Amidships, Battle of Port Arthur, Minefield, Protected cruiser, Capsized
No dead links - no action required
No dab links - no action required
Added missing non-breaking space between 8 and "cm" in 8 cm/40 3rd Year Type
Prose referencing seems to be in order - no action required
I'd link Argentine Navy in the Background section
- Linked in the lede.
The same section contains link to "Chile" and "Argentina" - WP:OVERLINK suggests those two might be dropped, but I have no problem passing the articles if they are left as is. If kept, the link to Chile should be moved to the first instance of the term though.
- Moved.
In the same section, there is mention of "high price" of ¥14,937,390 (£1,530,000) - I assume the value in pounds (presumably British) is contemporary rather than modern - but some readers might assume a million and a half pounds is a bit expensive for a cruiser in todays terms. I'm not sure if this is actionable at all, but is there any way to tell the difference (or what's that in today's currency). - not a dealbreaker at any rate
- I'm fairly certain that the Argentinians made a nice profit on the sale, but cannot confirm it. Can't convert to modern prices because capital costs like warships don't use the consumer price index for inflation.
The prose indicates ship's complement of 560, and the infobox lists 600 - I assume one of those numbers needs correcting
There's one extra Russian in "... five days later, they encountered the Russian protected cruiser Russian cruiser Aurora and reached Suez on the 16th..."
The article appears to be neutral, stable, well focused and reasonably comprehensive - no action required
Images are properly licensed and have suitable captions - no action required

There are just few minor issues listed above to address - nice work. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]