Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starstriker7 (talk · contribs) 17:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do this review. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 17:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 1

• "and completed late in the war; she never embarked her complement of aircraft and spent the war in Japanese waters." - Replace the semicolon with a comma.
  • Good catch.
• "aircraft on Kure Naval Base." - at Kure Naval Base?
  • Prepositions are always tricky.
• What does "purpose-built" mean?
  • Designed and built as a carrier.
• "and she was ordered to be camouflaged." - Nix the "and".
  • Howabout "she" instead?
• You did not mention Mount Amagi in the article proper.
  • Didn't think that I needed to since I cited it in the lede.
• Why are six Unryū carriers listed in the navbox at bottom if only three were completed?
  • Because the other three were at least laid down.
• Would it be useful to clarify that the Task Forces were American in nationality?
  • I don't really think so. The Brits had one task force in the Pacific at this time and I specifically mentioned that it was British in the Katsuragi article. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    • As always, you are welcome. I'm passing the article now (As for the comment below, I had been comparing it to the Russian warship articles I had reviewed, and the size of the section surprised me). --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 3

No comments for change here, but I do wonder; what permitted you to expand the Design and description section to the extent that you did?