Talk:Japanese battleship Fuji/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:18, 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):
 * Lead, "on the second day of the war with her sister Yashima." - Ambiguous - could be read as Fuji vs. Yashima.
 * I'd agree except for the fact that they're noted as sister ships.
 * Construction and career, Blackwall is a dab link
 * Fixed
 * Construction and career, "a Fleet review" - should "fleet" be lowercase?
 * Fixed
 * Construction and career, "spotted by the Invalid Optional Parameter which" - I think something went wrong here...
 * I'm not seeing this, where is it?
 * There was a screwy parameter, which I think I fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be worth thinking about splitting up the Construction and career section with at least one subsection. It's a bit of a wall of text, currently. Just a thought, however.
 * Thought about it, but there's no convenient dividing point towards the middle since that's all Russo-Japanese War.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref # 12 (Brook 1985, p. 269) - why is this the only book short ref to include a publication date?
 * Fixed
 * Ref # 18 (Tully) - What this is supposed to be a reference to? I can't find any other mention of "Tully" in the article.
 * Fixed
 * Howarth is in References but not Notes. Is there additional information that could be added from this source?
 * No, it was a legacy source that I couldn't get anything useful from (very badly titled book). Deleted.
 * Same as above for Preston.
 * Something useful added.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * A background section similar to that in Japanese battleship Asahi would be quite helpful to the general reader... Is there a reason one wasn't included here?
 * That's in the class article. Asahi was a unique ship so she got the full treatment.
 * 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:Battleship Fuji.jpg needs a source.
 * I'll have to select a different image once they start displaying properly on my computer. Right now I'm getting an invalid link error for all images.
 * That was odd, but image swapped out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

A few minor issues with prose, referencing and the image, but nothing major. Overall, nice work, and just a few tweaks needed before I promote to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the responses. Everything looks good at this point, so I am passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)