Talk:Japanese battleship Nagato/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 11:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Starting review


 * The above is only minor comments to justify my existence really, good work as always. You're getting me interested in reading more about the IJN...Zawed (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Stick with me, kid, cause I'm taking you places with the IJN! The battleship JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Musashi is at WP:FAC right now if you want another dose right away, otherwise you'll have to wait a few days while I work on Nagato's sister Mutsu.
 * Dude, where do you get the time?! Zawed (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no life; sad, but true.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarified that the Type 3 incendiary shell was developed for all battleship guns. I'm not sure that it really fits there, though, and am wondering if I should just explain the Sankaidan shells a bit more when they're first mentioned. What do you think?
 * Yeah, I think to explain it a bit more will hopefully give it more context with respect to the Nagato. Zawed (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved the description to the first time she fires such shells.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works for me. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The 76mm/3-inch gun is a PITA to describe. In British service it was called the 12-pounder and the Japanese called it the 8cm Type 41, although the actual caliber of the gun was 76mm. I was trying to get all that across without confusing the reader between the nominal caliber and the actual caliber. Do you have any thoughts on how to best to resolve the issue? Maybe in a separate note?
 * Leave it as it is, but with a note as you suggest. Zawed (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Duplicate links and DABs cleaned up
 * Gardiner deleted.
 * I don't understand your comment about Tully. It has a year of publication listed, just like Hackett, et al.
 * I was actually referring to the Footnotes section, not the References but regardless, you can ignore my comment which I have struck. I was a dumbass and didn't realise that you only use the year in the Footnotes to distinguish between the two Skwiot refs. Other than those two, you don't use the year at all.Zawed (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up the armor section and changed the cm/mm to reflect actual Japanese nomenclature, which was a mix of the two. Left the 3 inch guns alone for now until you've had a chance to respond to these comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded as above. Zawed (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, updating checklist and passing as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)