Talk:Battle of the Bismarck Sea/GA1

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

Reviewer: WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ &bull; ♥ • ♦ &bull; simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 22:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I will get to this later. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ &bull; ♥ • ♦ &bull; simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 22:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Onhold for 7 days
Lead is way too short, article is of sufficient size, file licenses check out. Breakdown for the Jap aircraft required (bombers and fighters). The pilots claimed to have They found the convoy and attacked with 1,000-pound (450 kg) bombs from 5,000 feet (1,500 m). should be The pilots claimed to have found the convoy and attacked with 1,000-pound (450 kg) bombs from 5,000 feet (1,500 m).. I will be back later with more comments. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ &bull; ♥ • ♦ &bull; simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have performed a copy edit and believe that I've rectified the issue of the typo. I am unsure of how to expand the lead, though, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More Comment(s)
 * Shirayuki was the first ship hit by the bombing and strafing, and Admiral Kimura was wounded. A bomb hit started a magazine explosion that caused the stern to break off and the ship to sink. should be Shirayuki was the first ship hit by the bombing and strafing, and Admiral Kimura was wounded. A bomb hit on this ship caused a magazine explosion and the stern to seperate from the rest of the ship. The ship sank because of the magazine explosion. or something similar. There are quite a few grammatical errors, I suggest you let one of the guild look over the article. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ &bull; ♥ • ♦ &bull; simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've gone through and made a few tweaks (I hope this was okay, Hawkeye). Regarding the example listed above, I've not changed it because I'm a little concerned that the suggested change would actually introduce redundancy. For instance, "this ship" or "the ship" is mentioned a number of times. To me (without access to sources), the original wording is probably a bit more concise. That's just my opinion, though. WikiCopter: would you be able to take another look and list any other areas of specific concern so that they can be addressed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still just don't like that sentnce, I dunno why. I think I'll pass the article (there is an essay against just not liking it). Good job. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ &bull; ♥ • ♦ &bull; simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 17:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)