Talk:Japanese ironclad Hiei/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasuke Sarutobi (talk · contribs) 17:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I shall be reviewing this under the guidance of Khazar2 as my first GA review, so please bear with me. I shall be watching this page, but feel free to get my attention either through my talk page or with {{mention}} if needs be. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Feel free to ask any questions you might have about why I did things the way that I did.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I'll try to do the article as much justice as I can, but please let me know if you disagree with anything I suggest. I won't be completing the review immediately, but will be inviting Khazar2 to look over my review first. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   The article reads well, with no spelling or grammar issues to be seen. A search with a few random strings for copyvio returns only mirrors and this, which appears also to be a mirror of the article prior to its move from 'Japanese corvette Hiei (1877)' (see [1]), though Zeably gives no attribution to Wikipedia. There are only a couple of things I could pick out on the copy-edit: As with Gatoclass' review of Hiei's sister ship, I'm not clear on why the keel-laying dates being the same is improbable. Would you be able to clarify? "... no Japanese shipyard was able to build ships of this size." I may be somewhat pedantic here, but the sentence sits slightly odd to me on account of the number agreement. Could this perhaps be changed to "a ship of this size"?

   Clarified the bit about being improbable. The beginning of the sentence refers to multiple ships so I think that the number agreement is OK even though the article is only about one of those ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

   Looks good, now all clear! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead summarises the article well, and the whole is well-structured. Again the only word that flagged up to me was 'improbable', with regards to the keel-laying dates, but this is something that may simply need to be qualified a little more.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   All listed references are represented in the 'notes' section for citation.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   All books are appropriately and accurately detailed, and relevant citations made in almost all cases; the main case I feel needs in-line citation is that of "Kongō sailed for Japan ... with a British crew because the IJN was not yet ready for such a long voyage. One of the passengers aboard her was the future admiral Togo Heihachiro...", but I can see that a lot of this information is in Evans & Peattie, p.14, except for the dates and duration of Togo Heihachiro's study.

   Lengerer covers all that which is why it's the last cite in the paragraph as per my usual cite style.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

   Makes sense, thank you for clarifying. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

   All key information is sourced appropriately, and reported in an appropriate encyclopaedic tone.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   All major points of the ship's features and history are covered, from design and construction through to decommissioning.

   B. Focused:

   Key information is supported appropriately, with supporting information at all times remaining relevant to the article.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article reports events and information factually, with no bias towards particular navies, nations or, where appropriate, combatants.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Reading the diffs shows that the article history is stable, changing only with addition of information or copy-editing.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The sole image except the flag is that of the ship itself, which is tagged with both the public domain tag of its originating country, and the consequent US public domain tag.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   An image of the ship itself is present, and identified and dated in the caption.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All clear now, so thank you very much for your patience and hard work! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A few asides that aren't really relevant to the review, but suggestions for consideration:

1. I'd probably suggest linking topmast (Propulsion), anti-torpedo boat (Armament and armor), and Tokai Naval District, Small Standing Fleet, Battle of the Yalu River, and Invasion of Formosa (all Japanese ironclad Hiei#History) for readers unfamiliar with the ships of the period or theatres in which they fought.

Some of these are in the lede, but I've added links to those that aren't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

2. I'm curious as to identity of the armored frigate that was ordered alongside the two Kongō-class ironclads.

Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

3. I noticed in Conway's that it mentions that the design "was based on the Russian General Admiral and British Gem class cruisers", which I though an interesting additional fact.

Lengerer, the best source on these ships, makes no note of this. And looking at the General Admirals, it's hard to see how they could have influenced the design of the Kongos as they were much larger with iron hulls. The Gems (Emerald)-class corvettes are a much more plausible source as they're almost identical in size, hull construction, and engine arrangement, but I decided to ignore the whole issue as only half of the statement from Conway's can be true at best.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

4. Evans & Pettie, p. 44 also appears to have some additional details on the battle of the Yalu River, if you're interested.

— Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching these, I'd missed the account of the Battle of the Yalu in Kaigun.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Outside coment

Hey Sturm, looks like another quality contribution; thanks as always for your work. I made a few tweaks, which you should feel free to revert if you disagree or I've inadvertently introduced any errors. A few points I couldn't immediately resolve for myself are listed below:

• "Horizontal-return connecting-rod steam engine" -- should the "h" be capitalized in this? If so, it seems a bit odd to not capitalize each word if this phrase is proper noun.
  • Fixed.
• "mounted on the ships' boats" -- should this be "ship's boats"? (There's multiple boats, but only one ship.)
  • Fixed.
• "their armament" -- who is "they" here? Is this Kongo-class corvettes as a whole?
  • Clarified.
• "she each also received" -- I'm not sure what this "each" means--"she" implies only one.
  • Indeed it does.
• "but this seems improbable" -- since this contradicts other sources, it's probably best to attribute this opinion in-text. "Historian Hans Langerer says this is improbable."
• "Completed in February 1878,[4] Kongō sailed for Japan " -- shouldn't it be Hiei sailed? Or are we following her sister ship now?
  • Stupid computer, not fixing these copy-paste errors.

I also agree with Sasuke's clarity requests on points above. Images, stability, neutrality, and MOS compliance (1b) are all fine, and Sasuke has taken care of checks for copyvio and accuracy. In short, nice work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this over, see if I've addressed all your points to your satisfaction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking good, thank you! I can see that you've addressed everything mentioned, and the article is looking fantastic now! Thank you for clarifying the issue around Conway's note on the hull design.

The keel-laying date issue seems a lot clearer following your rewrite; the issue for me was that, as I wasn't aware of the importance of the keel-laying date and difference between it and the contract date, I was reading the sentence as "Japanese sources universally give the same date [as each other] for her keel-laying..."; I get the impression now that it is actually "Japanese sources universally give the same date [as the awarding of the contract] for her keel-laying...", which makes a lot more sense in light of your comments. Possibly the only thing I would suggest is a minor rewrite to something like "Japanese sources universally give this as the same date for her keel laying, but Langerer considers this improbable as no shipyard would order enough material to begin construction without cash in hand.", followed with a citation to Langerer?

That aside, I would say that everything looks good to me now, so thank you for your work. @Khazar2: how do you feel? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, ready to pass--nice work as always, Sturm, and Sasuke, nice work on your first review! -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for your quick reply, Khazar - you caught me off-guard with the speed. @Sturmvogel 66: let me know what you think of my suggestion for the keel-laying sentence, and then we'll be ready to pass the article! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Rewritten, and the cite follows a couple of sentences later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic, and an even better rewrite than I'd suggested. I think everything is ready to go, and hopefully @Khazar2 feels the same. Thank you very much for all of your hard work in creating a great article! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)