Talk:Japanese cruiser Kasuga/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 22:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There are several duplicate links which should be removed per WP:OVERLINK - Gun turret, Amidships, Battle of Port Arthur, Minefield, Protected cruiser, Capsized
 * No dead links - no action required
 * No dab links - no action required
 * Added missing non-breaking space between 8 and "cm" in 8 cm/40 3rd Year Type
 * Prose referencing seems to be in order - no action required
 * I'd link Argentine Navy in the Background section
 * Linked in the lede.
 * The same section contains link to "Chile" and "Argentina" - WP:OVERLINK suggests those two might be dropped, but I have no problem passing the articles if they are left as is. If kept, the link to Chile should be moved to the first instance of the term though.
 * Moved.
 * In the same section, there is mention of "high price" of ¥14,937,390 (£1,530,000) - I assume the value in pounds (presumably British) is contemporary rather than modern - but some readers might assume a million and a half pounds is a bit expensive for a cruiser in todays terms. I'm not sure if this is actionable at all, but is there any way to tell the difference (or what's that in today's currency). - not a dealbreaker at any rate
 * I'm fairly certain that the Argentinians made a nice profit on the sale, but cannot confirm it. Can't convert to modern prices because capital costs like warships don't use the consumer price index for inflation.
 * The prose indicates ship's complement of 560, and the infobox lists 600 - I assume one of those numbers needs correcting
 * There's one extra Russian in "... five days later, they encountered the Russian protected cruiser Russian cruiser Aurora and reached Suez on the 16th..."
 * The article appears to be neutral, stable, well focused and reasonably comprehensive - no action required
 * Images are properly licensed and have suitable captions - no action required

There are just few minor issues listed above to address - nice work. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)