Talk:Japanese destroyer Yanagi (1944)
Appearance
Japanese destroyer Yanagi (1944) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 6, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese destroyer Yanagi (1944) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese destroyer Yanagi (1944)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) 17:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I am undertaking a review of this article.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Passes. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Okay. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Done. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Couldn't check Rohwer, Chesnau, Whitley, Jentsura et al. Partial check on Stille. All citations accepted in good faith.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No OR found. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No copyright vios, and no plagiarism. Phrases in text are echoed in WP articles about sister ships, though. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Pass. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Pass. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Pass. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Pass. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Verified. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Suitable. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- GA-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- GA-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- GA-Class Japan-related articles
- Low-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles