Talk:Operation Hailstone/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 02:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No DABs, one dead link.
 * Images appropriately licensed.
 * two dozen merchant and shipping vessels merchant and shipping vessels reads very oddly to me.
 * Link ships only on first mention. Link ship types in the infobox.
 * Link US Marine, seaplane, torpedo bomber, tanker, fleet oiler
 * dive bomber aircraft Awkward, change to dive bombers
 * Be sure to italicize all ship names.
 * starboard quarter what does this mean?
 * the effective severance of Japanese shipping lanes between empire waters and critical fuel supplies in Borneo for example. awkward. Seems to be overstating the case as fuel from the NEI could just as easily be shipped west of the Philippines and Taiwan.
 * Avoid one sentence paragraphs so combine the 2nd and 3rd paras in the Aftermath section.
 * Merriam is a WP:SPS; what makes him a reliable source?
 * Put the title of Tashiro in title case.
 * FYI, MOS:APPENDIX states that appendices like citations and bibliography should each use a lvl 2 header, not grouped under a lvl 3 header as you have it here. Lvl 3 headers should be reserved for differentiating between books and primary sources, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, see below for improvements made since your review:


 * No DABs, one dead link.
 * Images appropriately licensed.
 * two dozen merchant and shipping vessels merchant and shipping vessels reads very oddly to me.
 * Fixed this
 * Link ships only on first mention. Link ship types in the infobox.
 * Fixed
 * Link US Marine, seaplane, torpedo bomber, tanker, fleet oiler


 * Done
 * dive bomber aircraft Awkward, change to dive bombers


 * Agreed, changed
 * Be sure to italicize all ship names.


 * Done
 * starboard quarter what does this mean?


 * Changed to lay terminology (right, rear, etc.)
 * the effective severance of Japanese shipping lanes between empire waters and critical fuel supplies in Borneo for example. awkward. Seems to be overstating the case as fuel from the NEI could just as easily be shipped west of the Philippines and Taiwan.
 * Agreed, changed to mark the beginning of this process rather than its culmination
 * Avoid one sentence paragraphs so combine the 2nd and 3rd paras in the Aftermath section.


 * Done
 * Merriam is a WP:SPS; what makes him a reliable source?
 * Merriam republishes primary source materials. Merriam doesn't list the provenance of this list, but Merriam's list of ships sunk at Truk, accompanying the evacuation list, matches sources provided in Lindemann and Jeffery. Analysis of the list by way of primary and secondary sources also confirms accuracy of ship evac (e.g. Combinedfleet TROMs)
 * I don't think that it really contributes much to the article as it's pretty down into the weeds and the summary statement in the main body suffices for most all readers. If you want to keep it, you'll need to cite each ship from their TROM and clean up some entries.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Put the title of Tashiro in title case.


 * Got rid of source since it is Japanese language and dead link
 * FYI, MOS:APPENDIX states that appendices like citations and bibliography should each use a lvl 2 header, not grouped under a lvl 3 header as you have it here. Lvl 3 headers should be reserved for differentiating between books and primary sources, etc.
 * Fixed, I think. Let me know if this is sufficient. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't use semi-colons to bold headers as that screws with screen readers for the visually impaired. Use ordinary headers instead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, I agree the evacuation list isn't integral to the article, so I'll nix it. Adding TROMs to every ship would be extremely time-consuming relative to the benefit of keeping the list.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by "Don't use semi-colons to bold headers as that screws with screen readers for the visually impaired. Use ordinary headers instead." To my knowledge I didn't use semi-colons to that effect. I can certainly make the changes you're asking for, I just need to know how to do it. Other GA article I've done have had refs coded more or less the same as this one and it has not previously been an issue.
 * Edit: If you were referring to the bolding for 'Video' under the external refs, I just fixed that by nesting it under the broader header. The author's original creator or an earlier editor inserted that bit which is why I didn't understand your point.

Cheers, Finktron (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was talking about ; Video .--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)