Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * 1) The lede claims 'and was the first purpose-designed aircraft carrier in the world to be commissioned' this is not mentioned in the body of the article so needs a cite
 * Done.


 * 1) 'On 25 September Hōshō contributed six fighters to escort bombers attacking airfields at Tienho and Paiyun; they claimed six enemy aircraft' - claimed six enemy aircraft - enemy is a bit POV and claimed what damaged - destroyed?
 * Clarified.


 * 1) In the WWII section 'Her aircraft complement consisted of eight Yokosuka B4Y "Jean" torpedo bombers.[1] can the link to the external site be formatted correctly - What makes it reliable and it contradicts the text by stating she carried '8 Nakajima Type 97 torpedo bombers (Kate)' while the text has 'eight Yokosuka B4Y "Jean" torpedo bombers'
 * 2) After the ref mentioned above the rest of the paragraph is unreferenced apart for one to nav.weps for the guns
 * Cited.


 * 1) Gardiner, Robert; Gray, Randal, eds is listed in the references but does not seem to have been used
 * Deleted.


 * 1) Reference 4 Milanovich, p. 15 and 8 Milanovich, p. 22 by using ref name can remove ref 6 Milanovich, pp. 15, 22
 * 2) Same with ref 1, 2 and 13  use ref name to Milanovich, p. 11
 * 3) Same with refs 14, 19 and 20 to Milanovich, p. 21
 * I don't really see a need to consolidate the refs like this; it just means that an interested reader is going to have to thumb through more pages to find the exact information. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref added to Shattered Sword which covers point 3 (and the the use of Hosho's B4Ys to photograph the burning Hiryu).Nigel Ish (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix-up, Nigel.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You may want to undelete Gardiner & Grey - it's used as a reference in the notes section.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I'd missed it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree good catch on Gardiner (slaps own face) Passed GA --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)