Talk:Operation Kita/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations:: the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
 * Disambiguations: no dabs - (no action required)
 * Linkrot: Ext links all work - (no action required)
 * Alt text: Images of the "Japanese battleship Ise" lacks alt text, you may consider putting it in although its not a GA requirement AFAIK - (no action required)
 * Done

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead seems a little choppy and this might be resolved by adding to the first paragraph. Specifically you might consider adding that the ships were among the last Japanese warships to reach the home islands from the South West Pacific as it might serve to clarify the significance of the operation. I would suggest doing this as the final sentence in the first paragraph.
 * I've tweaked the lead - I think that the sentence you suggested worked better in the first paragraph, so I've induced it there
 * "next fourteen hours, but were unable to do so" should this be 14 per WP:MOSNUM?
 * Probably, fixed
 * Use of abbrevs seems inconsistent here: "Army Air Forces", should you just use USAAF here?
 * As the sentence begins with 'USAAF', this would be repetitive. I think I've seem this strategy (trick?) used in histories of the USAAF (though don't ask me which ones!)
 * Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Aftermath section"Rear Admiral Fife" should be just "Fife" per WP:SURNAME
 * Done (and for Lockwood as well)
 * I didn't pick that one up... cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No major problems AFAIK.
 * Can an oclc or isbn be added to the reference list for Craven?
 * Done (the entire series seems to share a single ISBN and a single OCLC; I've gone with the ISBN
 * You might consider consolidating the Nevitt reference as a named ref as it is used a couple of times.
 * They're separate articles on the Combined Fleet website, so I think it's better to leave them as separate references to make it clear what the sources are
 * Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also Nevitt doesn't appear in the reference list but the other work from CombinedFleet.com by Hackett et al does. This seems somewhat inconsistent.
 * Good point, fixed


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major aspects appear to have been covered.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
 * Images are appropriate for article and are correctly licenced where required.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall this article looks good to me, just a couple of minor points to be dealt with/discussed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your review - I think I've responded to your comments. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to pass for GA now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for taking the time to review this article Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)