Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi/GA1

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

Good Article Assessment
Nezzadar’s Good Article Assessment Template Please do not edit this section, as it should be preserved as is for future reference. To see what the letters and numbers below mean, look at the criteria page. If you wish to comment on anything in this section, please post it in the comments section directly below this assessment. 1: Passes - see sub-criteria:
 * A: Passes: This isn't my writing style, but it works well. I pass it with no objections.
 * B: Barely passes: Okay, normally I wouldn't care about the amount of Jargon in this article, but this is a GA nomination. I have to point it out. Thankfully, most of the terms can be extrapolated easily by context clues.

2: Passes - see sub-criteria:
 * A: Passes - It would appear to be valid.
 * B: Passes - In line citations present.
 * C: Passes - Assuming the two books cited are not themselves origional research, but this is a death spiral, as everything was at one time primary research.

C: Passes - see sub-criteria:
 * A: Passes - broad enough coverage, I can't think of anything to add.
 * B: Passes - consistently stays on topic.

D: Passes - Well done! The article is attached to WWII and yet is completely neutral. This, I guess, is the one benefit to having a technical detail heavy article. E: Passes - Looking at the history, it is my judgment that there really isn't that much action at all, let alone an edit war or other such nonsense. F: Passes - see sub-criteria:
 * A: Passes - Four images, all public domain. Nothing particularly suspicious.
 * B: Passes - Yeah, they work.
 * Decision: PASSES

02:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)