Talk:Japanese cruiser Sakawa/GA1

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Lead and infobox;
 * A comma after "After the war"
 * to be expended in "for" nuclear weapon tests
 * 1939 Fiscal Year ; not necessary, more over fiscal years vary from country to country


 * Section 1;
 * Looks good, consistency maintained, all the parameters—Displacement, Length, Beam, Draft, Power, Propulsion, Speed, Armament and armor—seem fine. Conversion templates and links are in right place.
 * and one aft; add wiktionary link to "aft"
 * Section 2;
 * I am bit confused with the last lines of the first paragraph; "the squadron was assigned to Operation Ten-Go" "originally scheduled to accompany the battleship Yamato with her sister ship Yahagi" "no fuel available for them to participate in the mission". I am unclear whether "the squadron was on low fuel, and so they were sent to the Ten-Go, instead of accompanying the battleships" or "As the battleships were on low fuel, this squadron was sent in their place"? Please make the clearer.
 * See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red-link "Fanna" if there is no article.
 * formally turned over to the United States Navy; See if "handed" sounds better than "turned"
 * A comma after "dismal working conditions aboard"
 * The second weapons test, Baker; is "Baker" the test's name? Why is it in italics?
 * Note 10; Make it "Tully 2016" for consistency
 * Why? No other refs use a date, nor is there any other source that it could be confused with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Copyright violation unlikely
 * All images OK.
 * Nice work. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Yexstorm2001, most of these have already been made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)