Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The notation of the largest ship sunk to date, should be phrased in a less time-dependent manner. It would be better to use the {{as of}} template to note when the source said it was the largest sunk (even though it's unlikely that any larger ship will be sunk by a submarine any time soon).
    I removed it altogether (it wasn't in my draft, and I cut it when I first rewrote the page - and then someone added it back in)Cam (Chat) 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The significance of the 1954 date for aircraft carrier size should be explained.
    It's in one of the footnotes. Cam (Chat) 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    My apologies for overlooking it. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    Cut that entire section - again, it wasn't in the original draft. Someone's been reverting my modifications, and it's beginning to aggravate me. Cam (Chat) 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, for the same reason, mere from the sentence beginning While en-route… in the lead.
    Fixed. Cam (Chat) 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The paragraph beginning Shinano's existence had been concealed so effectively… has no citations. Also, did the source call Shinano a leviathan? If so, it would be best to attribute it, or reword if not.
    I also removed that sentence. Cam (Chat) 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

Just a few prose issues and one referencing issue. I corrected some italicization and other minor MOS bits that would have taken longer to explain than to fix. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, so I'm passing the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)