Talk:I-351-class submarine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 18:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC) I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Just a few spots of unclear writing.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Design:
  • Less than felicitous phrasing "This class of submarines was ordered under the 5th..." perhaps "The I-351 submarine class..."?
  • "...as well as a 600-shaft-horsepower (447 kW) electric motors." Subject-verb agreement here - is is "a motor" or more than one motor?
  • "They had a range of 13,000 nmi (24,000 km; 15,000 mi) at 14 knots..." need to type out the full word on first usage of an abbreviation (nmi)
  • "...but they were unavailable when the submarines were under construction..." I think you mean "these" in place of "they"
  • "and either sixty 550-pound (250 kg) bombs or 30 bombs and 15 aircraft torpedoes." Needs to be "60" to fit with the other numbers written with numerals.
    • Fixed all of the above, but the last point is correct as written. See WP:Numbers#Numbers_as_figures_or_words.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Construction:
  • "heavy bombers on 22 July." I assume 1945? You know what they say "assume makes an ass out of you and me"...
    • I used 1945 in the previous sentence. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Your usual good work. Just a couple of spots where the writing could use a bit of polish. I took the liberty of doing a few small copyedits myself, where I could be sure that I wouldn't mess up things.
• I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine. Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)