Talk:Japanese battleship Fuji/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2012 (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):

   • Lead, "on the second day of the war with her sister Yashima." - Ambiguous - could be read as Fuji vs. Yashima.

   • I'd agree except for the fact that they're noted as sister ships.

   • Construction and career, Blackwall is a dab link

   • Fixed

   • Construction and career, "a Fleet review" - should "fleet" be lowercase?

   • Fixed

   • Construction and career, "spotted by the Invalid Optional Parameter which" - I think something went wrong here...

   • I'm not seeing this, where is it?

   • There was a screwy parameter, which I think I fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

   • It might be worth thinking about splitting up the Construction and career section with at least one subsection. It's a bit of a wall of text, currently. Just a thought, however.

   • Thought about it, but there's no convenient dividing point towards the middle since that's all Russo-Japanese War.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Ref # 12 (Brook 1985, p. 269) - why is this the only book short ref to include a publication date?

   • Fixed

   • Ref # 18 (Tully) - What this is supposed to be a reference to? I can't find any other mention of "Tully" in the article.

   • Fixed

   • Howarth is in References but not Notes. Is there additional information that could be added from this source?

   • No, it was a legacy source that I couldn't get anything useful from (very badly titled book). Deleted.

   • Same as above for Preston.

   • Something useful added.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • A background section similar to that in Japanese battleship Asahi would be quite helpful to the general reader... Is there a reason one wasn't included here?

   • That's in the class article. Asahi was a unique ship so she got the full treatment.

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

   • File:Battleship Fuji.jpg needs a source.

   • I'll have to select a different image once they start displaying properly on my computer. Right now I'm getting an invalid link error for all images.

   • That was odd, but image swapped out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A few minor issues with prose, referencing and the image, but nothing major. Overall, nice work, and just a few tweaks needed before I promote to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the responses. Everything looks good at this point, so I am passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)