Talk:Amagi-class battlecruiser/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the Armament section, it says "Each gun had 90 rounds". Does this mean the ship carried enough rounds for each gun to get 90 shots?
 * In the Background section, it says "In 1907, Japan was nominally halfway". What is meant by "nominally halfway"?
 * Background section, it says "This battleship, the battleship version of the Kongo-class battlecruisers," "This battleship, the battleship" is redundant and clumsy.
 * Construction section, it says "Akagi was the first ship of the class to be laid down, as she was on 6 December 1920". "As she was" is clumsy.
 * Construction section, it says "converting up to than two capital ships", which is poor grammar, I believe.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There are just a few prose issues, so I am placing this review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I fixed some of the wording issues you pointed out above; yes, each gun had 90 shells (900 main-battery shells in total), and I'm assuming that the "nominal" bit refers to the fact that while the Japanese navy had half of the required 8/8 fleet in service or under construction, all of the ships were made obsolete (thus necessitating a whole new set of ships) with the advent of the dreadnought type ships (but the ed17 wrote that section of the article, so he'd probably want to confirm my assessment). Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Parsec, and you were right in your assumption. :) I believe that I have fixed this now... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There are just a few prose issues, so I am placing this review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I fixed some of the wording issues you pointed out above; yes, each gun had 90 shells (900 main-battery shells in total), and I'm assuming that the "nominal" bit refers to the fact that while the Japanese navy had half of the required 8/8 fleet in service or under construction, all of the ships were made obsolete (thus necessitating a whole new set of ships) with the advent of the dreadnought type ships (but the ed17 wrote that section of the article, so he'd probably want to confirm my assessment). Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Parsec, and you were right in your assumption. :) I believe that I have fixed this now... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Allright, everything looks good, so I'm going to pass this article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)