Talk:Japanese destroyer Hagi (1944)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 13:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Will review shortly. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC) A short article, but comprehensive as far as I can tell. Minor, subjective comments. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * link repatriate?
 * "them even more suited for mass production" unclear to me what 'them' refers to here
 * "The accuracy of the Type 89 guns was severely reduced against aircraft because no high-angle gunnery director was fitted" could you simplify this sentence? I don't think it makes very much sense to somebody who's unfamiliar with ships. Maybe add an explanation why the absence of a director made the guns inaccurate against aircraft
 * That would require explaining the function of a director, which is a bit outside the remit of this article. A link to director will have to suffice.
 * "Hagi (Bush Clover)" Why not mention this in the lede?
 * The lede's a summary of the article and I don't feel that a translation of the name is appropriate.
 * "Fiscal Year 1943 " why the caps?
 * 'Cause that's how I always see them in my sources, especially in government ones.
 * "for a speed of 27.8 knots" so was this the top speed?
 * Not covered in my sources, but I believe that that was the best that could be achieved by the revised hull design coupled with the existing powerplant.
 * "Tachibana sub-class"
 * I don't understand what the problem is here.
 * I answered my own question-- forgot to remove the bullet point
 * what makes combinedfleet.com a reliable source?
 * It's run by two published authors on the IJN.
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * meets all the criteria. Passing Eddie891 Talk Work 15:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)