Talk:Shikishima-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool revealed one error with reference consolidation:
  • Forczyk, p. 46 - Multiple references contain the same content  Done
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required).
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues [6] (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • barbettes should be wikilinked at first use.
    • It was linked in the armament section and in the armour section. I've removed the latter.
  • This seems a little awkward to me: "Diagonal bulkheads connected the barbettes to the side armor, they were 12–14 inches (305–356 mm) thick, but only six inches thick at the lower deck level." Perhaps consider something like: "Diagonal bulkheads connected the barbettes to the side armor, which were 12–14 inches (305–356 mm) thick, but only six inches thick at the lower deck level."
    • I rewrote the whole sentence as I think that it, and your reformulation, could confuse a reader about what was actually 12-14 inches thick. See how it reads now.
• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • All major points cited using WP:RS.
  • Consistent citation style used throughout.
  • No issues with OR.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues here AFAIK.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • All recent edits look constructive.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • The article looks in good shape to me, only a couple of very minor points above. Anotherclown (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Should all be done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes those changes look fine. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)