Talk:Japanese battleship Shikishima/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 05:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Generic comments/suggestions:
 * "the ship fought in the Battles of Port Arthur, of the Yellow Sea and Tsushima" --> "the ship fought in the Battles of Port Arthur, the Yellow Sea and Tsushima"
 * this seems inconsistent: "had a beam of 75 feet 6 inches (23.0 m)" (in body) v. "Beam: 76 ft (23.164800 m)" (in infobox);
 * as above: "full-load draught of 27 feet 3 inches (8.3 m)" (in body) v. "Draught: 26 ft (7.9 m)";
 * as above: "normally displaced 14,850 long tons (15,090 t)" (in body) v "Displacement: 14,312 long tons (14,542 t) (normal)";
 * this seems inconsistent: "six 47-millimetre (1.9 in) 3-pounder guns" (in the body) v "8 × 1 – 3-pounder guns" (in the infobox);
 * this seems inconsistent: "six 37-millimetre (1.5 in) 2.5-pounder Hotchkiss guns" (in the body) v "4 × 1 – 2.5-pounder Hotchkiss guns" (in the infobox);
 * "The Russian battleship sank in less than two minutes after one of her magazines exploded, Makarov one of the 677 killed." --> Perhaps, "The Russian battleship sank in less than two minutes after one of her magazines exploded; Makarov was one of the 677 killed."
 * inconsistent: "Fukio, p. 54" (in Footnotes) v . "Fukui" (in References);
 * Its seems that I was a bit too liberal with the copy-paste routine for this article; all fixed now.


 * "File:HIJMS Shikishima-1920s.jpg": I think this needs a source;
 * It does, although I think that it's OK otherwise for use as it's pretty clearly published before 1956 and photographed before she was disarmed in 1923.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A source has been added for this now, so it looks fine now, I think. At ACR and FAC, it might need a US tag, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "File:HIJMS Shikishima.jpg": I think this probably needs a date of publication on the image description page. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This one's more problematic and may need to be pulled until the uploader provides the missing information. I've pinged both uploaders in hopes of getting the missing information added. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, please let me know how you get on. I will keep the review open for a bit longer. If you don't get any response in the next couple of days, I'm happy to close as successful, but with the understanding that you will sort out the remaining issue prior to ACR or FAC. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The uploader has added the source for this, although he failed to provide a date of publication, which I've requested. However, I recognize the series that it was published in, which began in the 1970s, so it probably meets the Japanese PD requirements now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I think that should be fine. Thanks for dealing with that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Technical review
 * a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot)  c (Alt text)  d (Copyright)
 * Images lack alt text, but it is not a requirement (only a suggestion):


 * Criteria
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Looks good, all issues above dealt with.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues in this regard. The article uses good quality sources and provides citations for all facts.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good coverage without unnecessary detail.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues in this regard that I can see.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Article is stable. There has been recent work, but it has been focused upon building towards taking the article to GAN.


 * 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:
 * Generally fine, see comments above.
 * Fixed now.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail: