Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Un'yō/GA1

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 15:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 15:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Lead and infobox;
 * damaged by an American submarine; mention the submarine's name
 * Not so important
 * she was sunk by another submarine; same as above
 * That is important enough
 * Please mention that she was renamed after being transferred to IJN. Because there is a chance for confusion on when was it renamed.
 * Done.
 * Section 1;
 * Please rename the section to "Construction and civilian service"
 * OK
 * Better to mention IJN in full on the first mention in the body
 * I don't see a need since it was spelled out in the lede.
 * Section 2;
 * Un'yō's crew numbered 850 officers and crewmen -> Un'yō's crew numbered 850 officers and crewmen or Un'yō's crew numbered 850 "including" officers and sailors; because the reader may get confused thinking that it had 850 officers.
 * Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All the units and conversions look good.
 * To be continued ... Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Section 3;
 * to the latter on 11 September; does "latter" refer to "Rabaul"
 * Yes.
 * red link "1st Fighter Regiment" "11th Fighter Regiment"
 * Good idea
 * 201st and 552nd Naval Air Groups; of whom? Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service, please mention.
 * I'd have thought that the "Naval" in their names would have made it clear that they belonged to the IJNAS
 * and four destroyers; can the class of these be mentioned?
 * Three Fubukis and a Kagero, although I don't really think it's important.
 * At 10 minutes after midnight; for consistency, it is better to mention the time in digits
 * OK.
 * Nearly six hours later; redundant, can be removed. Because time is already mentioned
 * OK.
 * File:Yawata_Maru.jpg; may not meet the Fair use of policy, because another image available for primary representation of the subject. What do you think?
 * Found a legal photo as a replacement.
 * No DAB link, External links OK.
 * 8.3% confidence, violation unlikely.
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)