Talk:Japanese battleship Yamato/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Alright. I'll try and cut down on the dashes. Cam (Chat) 00:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * Fixed Image Sandwich. Cam (Chat) 00:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Could I possibly ask how and where parameter B fails? Cam (Chat) 04:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...I believe that Silktork changed this. =/ — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Could I ask what more could be added, just so that I have somewhere to go from here? Cam (Chat) 00:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well...maybe you can't. I was thinking something like "well, if I can get 55kb on USS Nevada (BB-36), then I'm sure that you can get that for Yamato", but Yamato really didn't do much during the war and was around for 25-ish less years. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm going to place this on hold; I'm sure that you can take care of these Cam. :) I'm going to go through the article quick and fix and few things that I saw. Good job! — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  06:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the "Legacy and in Popular Culture" section is trivia...move them into the text or into external links if possible please. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  07:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * New plan: will work on this article tomorrow. :)
 * Also...need a few cites for the infobox. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  07:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Throughout the American naval campaign at Guadalcanal, Yamato remained at Truk, as her high fuel consumption rates prevented feasible use in the Solomon Islands Campaign.[5]"
 * Guadalcanal campaign => Solomon Islands campaign in the same sentence? — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick comment. I haven't read this through, but I did pick up the claim "largest, heaviest, and most powerful battleships ever constructed" which is not followed up in the main body and which is not sourced. And the armament paragraph in the Construction section is very dense, and a bit geeky for the general reader; and also doesn't fit in the Construction section, but probably belongs in an Armament section.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * the main "armament" section is in the flagship article (Yamato class battleship), while the section in this particular article is designed simply to give an overview. I'm structuring these pages very similarly to the way TomStar81 structured all of the Iowa class battleship FAs (all of which worked perfectly fine). Cam (Chat) 03:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this isn't the biggest deal. However, maybe a third-level "Armament" section right there or something? — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just read Yamato_class_battleship - that has a distinct section, and takes it's time to engage the reader a bit more. I understand what you say about an overview. But an overview doesn't mean cutting out the prose that makes it readable and leave only a list-style paragraph, it would mean doing an appropriate summary of the main points, and providing a clear link to the appropriate section in the main article. As in . Iowa_class_battleship is awesome! And what a great article. Nobody expects you to go into that kind of depth for a GA. I note that USS Iowa (BB-61) is structured the same way as this article, and I can see why Climie feels that if it's OK there, it should be OK here. However, the same problem was raised at that article's GA Review: Talk:USS_Iowa_(BB-61) and not followed through. I think there is reasonable concern that general readers will find that section awkward, and it would be appropriate to take those concerns onboard. I have raised the same issue at the USS Iowa (BB-61) FA review  SilkTork  *YES! 10:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if Cam's goal is FA, then he can go that far in-depth IMHO...and this will not cause the failure of this GAN - even if it is overboard, it is well-cited and decently, if not well, written. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cam, lets just go with a separate "Armaments" section at the beginning or end, using your sources that are there already for this article and adding to the class article with Navweaps as an additional source. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  18:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll do that stuff all later. I've got a math diploma tomorrow that I have to study for at the moment, so I'm somewhat preoccupied. Cam (Chat) 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about this then, Cam. It'll stay open as long as you need it to be&mdash;even if that is a month or more. ;) — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'm back at it. I'll get this remaining stuff done ASAP. Cam (Chat) 23:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)