Jump to content

Talk:Shikishima-class battleship/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

[edit]
  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

[edit]
  • Citations: The Citation Check tool revealed one error with reference consolidation:
    • Forczyk, p. 46 - Multiple references contain the same content  Done
  • Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required).
  • Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action required).
  • Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues [6] (no action required).

Criteria

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • barbettes should be wikilinked at first use.
      • It was linked in the armament section and in the armour section. I've removed the latter.
    • This seems a little awkward to me: "Diagonal bulkheads connected the barbettes to the side armor, they were 12–14 inches (305–356 mm) thick, but only six inches thick at the lower deck level." Perhaps consider something like: "Diagonal bulkheads connected the barbettes to the side armor, which were 12–14 inches (305–356 mm) thick, but only six inches thick at the lower deck level."
      • I rewrote the whole sentence as I think that it, and your reformulation, could confuse a reader about what was actually 12-14 inches thick. See how it reads now.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • All major points cited using WP:RS.
    • Consistent citation style used throughout.
    • No issues with OR.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • All major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • No issues here AFAIK.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • All recent edits look constructive.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
    • Images used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.