Talk:Japanese battleship Hatsuse/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 23:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action action required).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * A bit repetitive here: "Tōgō had expected his surprise night attack on the Russians by his destroyers to be much more successful than it actually was and expected..." Perhaps reword?
 * How does it read now?
 * Yes thats better.
 * Inconsistent presentation of armaments here: "Japanese 8-inch (203 mm) and six-inch guns..." Is this MOS compliant? You've been writting these articles for a while so I imagine there may be a reason that I've missed.
 * Six inch had been converted earlier, but eight inch hadn't.
 * Makes sense - I knew you had a reason.
 * This seems a strange construction to me: "inflicted very little significant damage." Perhaps consider: "inflicted very little damage of any significance..." (suggestion only)
 * As you might have noticed, I use "little significant damage" a lot and am surprised that you find it infelicitious. I don't believe that it's improper English, but I'm happy to use your formulation as my sense of language is not always the best.
 * Its more the "very little" followed by "significant", just seems counter-intuitive to me. I've actually tweaked this further as I didn't like my own suggestion, so pls review my change. If you don't like it just go back to the original wording.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * Consistent citation style used throughout.
 * No issues with OR.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues here AFAIK.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * All recent edits look constructive.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * Images used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Looks good to me, only a couple of minor points above to address / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Passing now, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)