Talk:Japanese cruiser Asama/GA1

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Several dupe links to be fixed
 * Check ENGVAR - see a defence and defense
 * "The Russians were unaware that war had begun that night when the IJN launched a surprise attack on Port Arthur until notified by the Japanese that morning." - this is pretty awkwardly worded.
 * ..." including Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov's flagship, the battleship Petropavlovsk, and Asama engaged the Russian cruisers before falling back on Tōgō's battleships." - this almost makes it sound like Asama was part of the Russian fleet - I'd probably split it after mentioning Petropavlovsk.
 * {xt|"the two ships sailed departed..."}} - seems like there's an extra word here.
 * Can we get some context on the American Expeditionary Squadron? I assume this is a Japanese formation - maybe something could be added in a note?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:Asama-cruiser.jpg - needs the Japanese/US copyright tags instead of the pd-old one
 * File:Japanese cruiser Asama 1946.jpg - this could be tricky, since it doesn't meet the second condition of the copyright template (it was obviously not taken before 1946) - we'd need a pre-1956 date of publication, I think.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * File:Japanese cruiser Asama 1946.jpg - this could be tricky, since it doesn't meet the second condition of the copyright template (it was obviously not taken before 1946) - we'd need a pre-1956 date of publication, I think.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

You've got eagle eyes, my friend! Reworded everything, see how they work for you. Not sure what to add about the American Expeditionary Squadron as it seems to have been a temporary formation to protect shipping along the west coast of the Americas. I'm not sure of its exact name, nor when it was formed or disbanded, so I'm a little reluctant to add a link, and its activities discussed in the next couple of sentences. But if you think something more is needed, can you be a bit more specific? Thanks again for the thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * After having read through Izumo, I see what it was - maybe just add a note explaining that it was an Anglo-Japanese formation and maybe include the ships that were assigned to it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a note. Didn't bother with composition on first mention as the squadron flagship, Izumo, is mentioned as such after the wreck. But I can change that if you think that it would be clearer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)