Talk:Satsuma-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 19:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The article appears to be written in AmEng, but uses "tonnes" - in AmEng, this is usually "metric tons". You can specify the output of the convert template with "sp=us"

   Had my units reversed, that's all.

   Yeah, I was a little unsure if you had meant to use long tons. There was one more you missed, but I fixed that for you.

   Thanks.

   The last structure of the sentence is somewhat confusing. Why not say that Aki was sunk on the 2nd and that Satsuma was sunk five days later (i.e., put it in chronological order)?

   Good idea.

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):

   Who designed the ships? My understanding was that previous classes were basically copies of British designs; you note that they were similar to the Lord Nelsons - how similar? The implication is that they were designed by Japanese architects with British assistance - is that correct?

   My sources aren't saying specifically, but the article reflects what they do say. As I said, the designs were pretty close, but the Japanese did their usual thing and one upped the Lord Nelsons by an exchanging pair of single-gun turrets for twins and increased their caliber to 10 inches from 9.2.

   I figured that was the situation.

   What would have been the arrangement of the twin turrets? I'm guessing one fore and aft, with the other two amidships flanked by the single turrets?

   Read it more carefully, three 10-inch turrets on each side. The diagram will help significantly

   I guess I wasn't clear. I know what the actual arrangement was, I was curious about the original design, the one with four twins and four singles. It's not necessary for the article, mainly I'm just curious.

   I wish I had more info, but there's no good design history on these ships.

   Yeah, you'd think there would be something, especially given the fact that they might have beat Dreadnought as the first all-big-gun battleship, but I guess not.

   Why the range in length/beam/displacement? If Aki was the larger of the two, why not be more specific in the description?

   I did say that Aki was the larger in the first para of the description. Do you think that I ought to break them out like I did in the propulsion section?

   Yeah, I think that would be more clear. And since you already just said Aki was larger, there might be some confusion over why the figures are given in ranges and not explicitly stated.

   Done.

   It would probably be helpful to the reader to clarify that the transitional nature of their design led to them being quickly superseded by more powerful designs (and hence why their careers were so limited).

   The Japanese kept everything in service, so, barring the WNT, it's hard to say that they'd have been short lived. I mean Fuji of 1896 was still in service in 1920! If I knew more about what their duties were I could say that the dreadnoughts relegated them to second-line service, but I don't really know that.

   Well, yeah, but they weren't included in the first iteration of the eight-eight fleet, and there has to be a reason for that (i.e., the Japanese knew they were no longer front-line ships, even in 1910, before these ships had even entered service).

   That's a very good point.

   It might also be worthwhile to give a little more detail on the WNT, particularly its context, given that Japan was one of the three main navies involved in the arms race the WNT was designed to stop.

   I can add a little bit more about how all almost all of the semi-dreadnoughts fell victim to it.

   That's better, but I was thinking of a short synopsis of the WNC/T, for instance what I wrote in USS Delaware (BB-28).

   Done.

   One thing I just noticed - it says that they resembled the Lord Nelsons but with an additional turret amidships. The Lord Nelsons did have 3 turrets, the only difference was that the central turret was a single mount.

   Good catch, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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):

   Not a requirement, but are there any linedrawings from Brassey's available? It would be helpful to illustrate the disposition of the main battery and so forth.

   I hate how Brassey's doesn't index their drawings, but I've added one from the 1912 edition that's actually legal.

   Yeah, Brassey's can be a pain - sometimes all you can do is manually trawl through the different editions until you find what you need.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks for the prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, looks good to pass now. Great work. Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)