Talk:Fusō-class battleship/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —Ed!^(talk) 19:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Comments

   1. Why did Fusō undergo two upgrades while Yamashiro only one? Was it needed for something part way through the upgrade? You should put a line or two in specifying why this was the case.
      1. Oddly enough, none of my sources specify the gap. My guess would be that they realized halfway through Yamashiro's that they'd missed some stuff on Fuso that would have proved useful, so finished her that way and then went back and added it onto Fuso later, but I don't know for sure. I'll keep looking through what I have, though I doubt I'll find anything. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
   2. Could you provide the names of the two ships in original Japanese?
      1. Quite easily, though my tradition has been to keep that in the individual ship articles. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
         1. That works. In that case, just link to the ships in the body of the text - I only saw it in the lead. —Ed!^(talk) 19:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
   3. Please put all of the references into {{cite book}} templates.
      1. Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass

5. It is stable:

   Pass

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass

7. Overall:

   On Hold The article is outstanding, far above GA standards. Just a few things to add, then I'd suggest taking it straight to an ACR. —Ed!^(talk) 19:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. Passing the GA review. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 16:01, 29 November 2010 (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.