Talk:Japanese battleship Mikasa/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 10:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments
I'm surprised to see this article un-reviewed for so long given the ship's fame. I'm planning on visiting her whenever I next travel to Japan, so this will be good preparation for the trip (whenever it might be!).

I have the following comments:
 * The lead is a bit short
 * What would you suggest adding?
 * How about a para on the background to the ship and her current status, and another para on her service history? Nick-D (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've expanded this, but I think that I'm at about the limit given the limited sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks good Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The length of the background section is OK for GA class, but would need to be expanded for A class
 * OK; not this article is likely to go beyond GA.
 * Is the 8.8 million yen figure the cost of the ship at the time she was ordered?
 * Yes, how does it read now?
 * Am I right in reading the article as meaning that this ship was the only ship of her class? If so, that could be made more explicit.
 * Done.
 * "used in all of the preceding battleships." - should this be "used in all of the preceding Japanese battleships." or similar?
 * OK.
 * Do we know when, and how, the ship made her way from Britain to Japan? (I imagine that the Japanese would have sent a crew to the UK to sail her back to Japan)
 * Not sure, I'll have to poke around and see if I can dig something up.
 * Nothing found online. Checked ANZUS and NYT newspaper archives as well as Google Books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "She was hit twenty times, two of which knocked" - two of what? (I'd suggest changing the first part of this to "She was hit by twenty shells" or similar)
 * Clarified.
 * Do we know what caused the fire in September 1905?
 * Exact cause is unknown.
 * Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Extra detail on the use of the ship as a museum ship would be good (I think that one the articles on Latin American battleships noted that parts were stripped from the ship to restore Mikasa when she was scrapped in Japan). Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ed forgot to cite that bit in the Amirante Latorre article so I've pinged him to remedy that deficiency and will add it here when he does. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK Nick-D (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As you might recall, that info seems to be unverifiable. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair enough (I presume that Ed has, or will, remove it from the other article given that it can't be sourced)

Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * I'd suggest double-checking the sources of the images (and adding details where necessary) before taking this to an ACR. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Great work with this article Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * I'd suggest double-checking the sources of the images (and adding details where necessary) before taking this to an ACR. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Great work with this article Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Great work with this article Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)