Talk:Japanese battleship Mutsu/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 08:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments
This article is in great shape. I have the following comments
 * "Mutsu loaded supplies from Kyushu for the victims on 4 September" - can something more precise be said about this? (Kyushu is a big island, so can the port be identified?)
 * I've added the bay where they anchored.
 * "she sank the hulk of the obsolete battleship Satsuma on 7 September 1924 during gunnery practice in Tokyo Bay in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty" - this is a bit unclear; the destruction of Satsuma was in accordance with the treaty, but the document didn't specify that she needed to be sunk as target practice as this sentence implies
 * She had to be sunk or scrapped, which is why I used weaker language like "in accordance" rather than "required". Happy to take suggestions if you have any.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Captain Mitsumasa Yonai, later Prime Minister of Japan" - his name isn't linked
 * Good catch.
 * The paragraph which begins with "During the war Mutsu saw limited action" is currently unreferenced
 * Hate when I do that.
 * The sentence which begins with "n July 1944, the oil-starved IJN" also needs a reference
 * Ditto
 * The final section states that some artifacts are located in "shrines", but doesn't identify these
 * The Yasukuni Museum is on the grounds of the Yasukuni Shrine.
 * Yeah, but it's very much a museum (albeit one promoting some dodgy history), and not a shrine. Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * True. Shrine removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is not the No. 4 turret raised from the wreck in 1970 because it was photographed in 1947" - this doesn't seem necessary given that the source of the turret is identified in the previous sentence Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks for the review.

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. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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:
 * The photos should all be PD, but some don't have any clear sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * The photos should all be PD, but some don't have any clear sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: