Talk:Japanese battleship Yashima/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 12:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this a review now and add points below as I come across them. Miyagawa (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Port Arthur link in the lead is linking to a disambig page.
  • Fixed.
• Description: Is there anyway to remove the two zeros from the end of the converted distance of the beam length, or is this stuck with the convert template?
  • Fixed
• Construction and career: Could do with a link to Battle of Port Arthur.
  • Linked in the lede.
    • Thanks, I'd missed that. Miyagawa (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Could also do with some trunking to remove the year from the link to Russian cruiser Boyarin (1901).

• Done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than that, I think this is good to go. Once those tweaks are made, I'll happily promote this to GA. Incidentally I agree with your choice not to include the sinking postcard image in the article as the licensing is evidenced in the description. Miyagawa (talk) 12:32, 21 July 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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I believe the article meets all the criteria for GA, and therefore it's a pass. Good job. Miyagawa (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)