Talk:Japanese battleship Asahi/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll just go on a battleship binge tonight... Should have comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * American or British English? I see both armor and armour, program/programme, etc.
 * British. I think I caught all of these, but let me know if any remain.
 * Lead, "based at Shanghai, China and Camranh Bay, French Indochina" - This reads as if she was based at both places simultaneously.
 * Fixed
 * Background - First sentences is quite long, and would probably be better split into two.
 * See how it reads now.
 * Background, "for the four remaining battleships of the programme.[3] Asahi, the fifth of these battleships," If there were four remaining, there can't be a fifth...
 * Rephrased, but she was the fifth of the six battleships authorized in the program, 2 of which had already been built.
 * Design and description, "The hydraulically powered mountings could be loaded at all angles of traverse while the guns were loaded at a fixed angle". I don't understand this sentence. Why would you load a mounting? My confusion is probably attributable to my layman status, but even a technical section such as this one should be accessible to us...
 * See how it reads now.
 * Construction and career, "struck the bridge (nautical) of Tsesarevich" What?
 * Fixed
 * Battle of Tsushima, "Asahi again followed the battleship Mikasa into combat," When had she done this before?
 * Battle of the Yellow Sea, now specified.
 * Battle of Tsushima, "and her speed was limited to 12 knots" Why did disarmament limit her speed?
 * Probably had some boilers removed, but source doesn't specify.
 * Battle of Tsushima, "One of her two funnel was removed was also removed," I think this sentence needs a bit of work...
 * Agreed
 * Battle of Tsushima, link Marco Polo Bridge Incident?
 * Battle of Tsushima, "Asahi was fitted with dummy wooden main battery fore and aft to resemble an old battleship" Why?
 * Not specified in source, but probably as a decoy.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * What is ref #1?
 * I believe it's the stanza of poetry from which the ship's name is derived. But I really couldn't say for sure.
 * What makes combinedfleet.com a reliable source? Also, there's a little "ƒ" at the end of the long ref version of this reference - is this a typo?
 * It's published by two noted historians of the IJN, Jon Parshall and Anthony Tully.
 * 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):
 * File:HIJMS Asahi.jpg is missing...everything.
 * Replaced.
 * Except that the replacement File:Асахи.jpg is asserting life of author + 70 yrs as copyright. Because we don't know the author (or he's not listed), it is impossible to know if he died more than 70 yrs ago.
 * Deleted.
 * File:IJN Asahi 2.jpg is missing a source.
 * It's a postcard taken and published before the ship was disarmed in 1922, which means it's in US and Japanese copyright so a source would be great, but not necessary to confirm copyright status.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This one is on the edge, because without a source, we have no way of knowing that this is in fact a 1905 postcard. However, it was obviously taken before the 1922 disarming, which puts it in the correct timeframe for copyright. Dana boomer (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now the main image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Now the main image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

A few issues with references and images, and the prose gets a bit sloppy in a few places. Not too much work needed, though, and it will be ready for promotion. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good except for the one image issue I replied to, above (the replacement image is also non-copyright compliance, at the moment). Dana boomer (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Allright, everything looks good. Now passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)