Talk:Design A-150 battleship/GA1

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

I'll take up the challenge and review this very soon Ranger Steve (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for submitting Design A-150 Battleship for Good Review. I've had a good read and assesed the article against the 6 GA Criteria, so I hope you find my comments useful.

1. Writing.

You might like to think about re-ordering the article somewhat. I'd probably break the Design section into Background, Specifications and Armaments subsections, then create a new section called Construction (or lack of it!) to finish the article with. This would allow you to move some references into the body of the text from the lead as I describe below.
 * I wish I could, but there is simply not enough information to warrant "Specifications" section. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See what you think of this sort of layout. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Prose I'd say there are a few areas where the prose could possibly be tidied up a bit. Specifically I'm thinking of:
 * In the lead - However, the ships' keels were never laid, as the Japanese halted all work on battleships so that a demand for "aircraft carriers, cruisers, and smaller ships" could be sated. I might be inclined to change this around to something like: However, so that the Imperial Japanese Navy's demand for aircraft carriers... could be sated, work on Battleships was halted and the ships' keels were never laid. The sentance is repeated in the body of the text and can be properly quoted and referenced there.
 * Done, and the lead reference is there for the quote; I believe that quotes should be properly referenced even in the lead. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I tend to avoid it unless its an explosive assertion, but its open to individual style so it's your call! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II, the authors William H. Garzke and Robert O. Dulin argue that these ships ...... Couldn't this be rewritten along the lines of It has been argued for the lead, and then repeat the statement as it is currently written in the armament section (referenced accordingly).  Also the reference to the extensive secondary armament seems superfluous next to the 20 inchers in the lead paragraph.
 * You would be right, except that I've been faulted for not attributing 'extraordinary claims' directly to reputable people. :) I've also moved the reference to where I wanted it orginally, to provide a source for the quote. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, I know the feeling, but I'd say as long as the sentance were repeated in the prose with the correct attribution and ref, you're ok. It just seems a little too much detail in the lead which is just an overview. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of the above points would allow you to simplify the lead section and remove refs from it. See WP:LEADCITE for guidance on keeping the lead section simple.
 * Later design studies, began after the completion of plans for the Yamato class (1938–39) focused upon a ship with a displacement nearer to that of the Yamato's. The grammar needs tidying here. Perhaps Later design studies begun after the completion of plans for the Yamato Class, focused...
 * Believe this is fixed. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...similar to the fate of papers relating to the Yamato class... Could use other words (like documents) to avoid repetition.
 * Good thought. Have done. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the things that made them such good weapons, perhaps change to something along the lines of The weapon's key advantages that made it so successful (the high muzzle....
 * Overall, the weapons compared very well with other contemporary weapons. Maybe change to contemporary designs.
 * Wow, what I wrote originally was rather bad. Have changed and thanks — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be nice to try and incorporate the two notes into the main body of the text as well. At least the first one.
 * How? I put the first one into a note because I couldn't find a spot for it in the prose :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style
 * Small amount of overlinking (keels, turrets, cruisers etc..).
 * Probably be best to remove wikilinks from inside the quotations. This will be fine if you make the sentance about carriers/cruisers in the lead a statement rather than a quote (as suggested above) and ref the complete quote in the body of the text later, minus wikilinks.
 * I like to wikilink stuff once if it appears in the lead, then in its first occurence in the article for ease of clicking (so you don't have to go and 'find' an link). I eliminated the links within quotations in the lead, but have left them in the actual article as I believe that they help the reader... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'd like to see more wikilinks - to knots, gun laying, anti aircraft, the guns, etc..


 * Have added links to knot (speed, gun laying and anti-aircraft warfare. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The incorporation of the 20 inch guns into the design is mentioned 3 times. I think I'd be inclined to keep it in the lead, clear it out of the design (specification) section and detail it in the armament.
 * I disagree here. The choice of 20" guns was a major factor in why the ship was design the way it was, and therefore should be included in the design section (IMHO). Also, I count only two times where it is mentioned in "Design" :P — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant three times including the lead. I did actually end up keeping it in the specifiaction section of my sandbox version as well! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a better title for the external link, just explaining what it is? As it would appear to be a paper, WP:CITET may offer some guidance.
 * I've remved at, as it dealt mainly with the Yamato-class battleships, not this class. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I imagine there should be a Japanese name that could be included in this article. The edit history lists one that might be correct.
 * I remved that because I think it was the Japanese name for "Super Yamato". I'll leave a message at WT:JAPAN when I get on next and see what I can do. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When I get time I'll look into this too. I used to live in Japan.... Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Factually Accurate and Verifiable
 * For the technical details of the ship and its armament, it might be an idea to ref a few more of the specifications individually rather than just at the end of a paragraph. I have no doubt all the information is in the 2 books listed, but it isn't immediately clear from the solitary references attached to the last sentence.
 * A few statements that might need a different source include
 * The successful construction of a 480 mm (18.9 in) gun in 1920–1921 made the Japanese confident that a 510 mm (20.1 in) could be constructed.
 * No, that's covered in Garzke and Dulin. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just repeat the ref at the end of the sentence then. It isn't immediately clear that the ref at the end of the para related to the sentence at the start (by then its on a slightly different topic). Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * however, similar to the fate of papers relating to the Yamato class, most papers and all plans relating to the class were destroyed in the confusion at the end of the war, meaning that the full specifications of the ships are not known.
 * Have added two refs for that. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also a little worried about the website as a ref for The 100 mm (3.9 in)/65 caliber anti-aircraft guns were the best anti-aircraft guns produced by Japan during the Second World War. I'm sure this is accurate looking at the website's own refs, but is there a more authoritative ref that could be used?
 * Probably, but none that are accessible to me. For what it is worth, I had emailed DeGuilian&mdash;who happens to be a weapons expert, by the way ;)&mdash;who said that that statement is his opinion that is shared by many of the books and sources he has looked at. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Good research!

3. Broadness I see no major probs here. It covers a wide range of known details without being overly technical. However, you might want to relate the article to other events in Japan at the time (Sino-Japanese war etc...), and why they were building these ships. I notice from the edit history that there was some info on this previously, and some of it could be useful to establish the context of these big ships and the race to build them (properly referenced of course).
 * The problem is that the information in there before was about the Design B-65 cruisers, not A-150, and I don't want to violate WP:SYN. :| — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral No probs.

5. Stable Would certainly appear to be.

6. Images All good, although maybe change the caption for An artist's interpretation... by R.Allison just to make it clear at first glance that it is an interpretation.
 * Done. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gotta say this is a fascinating article - I never had any idea they were hoping to build a 20" gun. That said it's not quite a Good Article just yet, but if you can sort out the issues I've raised, and maybe find a few more refs, it should sail through.  So, I've put the article on hold, and I'll come back and look in 2 weeks, which I hope will give you enough time to make some changes.  If you've got any questions or need some more clarification on what I've said feel free to contact me.  Best of luck,


 * Hi, thank you for the review! :) Will start fixing the issues you pointed out soon. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lemme know if I can do anything else Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you already know my opinion on your layout from my talk (it's excellent!), and I have included it, so I think many or all of your concerns above have been addressed. Is there anything else you feel the article is lacking? — Ed   (Talk  •  Say no to drama)  02:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I think that might be it. I'll give it a final read through tonight just to be sure.  I would still ref that line though.  I don't think OVERLINK is relevant here because that primarily deals with internal links, not references.  As I said, the line is about a different subject to the reference at the end of the paragraph so it would, in my opinion, warrant a fact tag. Ranger Steve (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have added the ref :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Say no to drama)  06:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, all looks good and is nearly ready to pass, except......
 * The ref you've added wasn't the sentence I was worried about. Its the first sentence of the Background section I think needs referencing.
 * I notice that the ref for the quote "aircraft carriers, cruisers, and smaller ships" is now missing. As its a direct quote it needs its own ref too.

That should be the last thing, as everything else looks cool! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have done, thanks for the good catch re #2 above and for the review. Cheers! — Ed   (Talk  •  Say no to drama)  07:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sugoi! I declare this a Good Article! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)