Talk:Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier/GA1

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 15:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * What's Ducol steel?
 * IIRC, it's a steel alloy roughly equivalent to STS, although I seem to recall mentions by the British that it was hard to weld. I really need to buckle down and start some stubs on the various types of armor steel based on Nathan Okun's work.
 * Probably worth a redlink - maybe that'll give you the impetus to start a stub - it did for me at least with the stubs on the squadrons of the High Seas Fleet ;)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Guess I oughtta stop trying to do reviews at work - get distracted for a second and forget what I was typing...
 * I don't know that I'd use the abbreviated "avgas" - seems a little jargony to me.
 * Expanded the abbreviation.
 * called the performance of the young aviators, "a sterling performance... - performance twice in one sentence seems a little redundant - maybe rewrite to "Zimm said the young aviators made 'a sterling performance..."?
 * Good idea.
 * The Coral Sea section references replacing the ships' lost aircraft - I assume from the Indian Ocean Raid, but no mention is made there of having lost any aircraft.
 * Rather than try to tally their losses, deleted the sentence.
 * The first airstrike attacked the two American carriers, scoring three hits on Enterprise, and the battleship USS North Carolina - this reads awkwardly to me - I might move the bit about hits on Enterprise after North Carolina
 * Agreed.
 * You might include a link to fleet in being to the line about Zuikaku and the Yamatos after Santa Cruz
 * Funnily enough, I remember thinking the exact same thing before being distracted by... oooh, shiny!
 * Happens to me all the time ;)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The table should have citations for the construction data - the fates are covered later in the article.
 * Good catch.
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I wonder if File:Fig of japanese aircraft carrier Shokaku in 1942.gif would be a better option instead of the ONI drawing
 * Hell, yes, wondering now how I neglected this in the first place?
 * File:Japanese.aircraft.carrier.zuikaku.jpg - unless Mr. Kazutoshi Hando was a member of the USN, the tags need to be corrected
 * This is another where we don't have the proper tag which would be copyright US gov as captured enemy property.
 * I don't think so - he donated the photo in 1970.
 * OK, fixed the tag, although the source is a deadlink that I'll need to fix before the ACR. Sigh.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Zuikaku November 1941-cropped.jpg - needs a US tag
 * The US tag on File:Carrier shokaku.jpg is obviously wrong ;)
 * You might note that the white blotch on the photo of Shokaku at Coral Sea is a fire
 * The caption mentions the fire from the first hit, do I need to make the connection more explicit?
 * I guess I can't read ;)
 * File:Shokaku Santa Cruz fire.jpg - needs a US tag
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * File:Shokaku Santa Cruz fire.jpg - needs a US tag
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Did all the tags that I could and thanks for looking this over. A major question for me before I sent this off to ACR is how appropriate is the level of detail? I struggled a bit writing the careers section, going down into total losses on both sides for their battles, but decided then that was too specific for a class article. Are there any places where I have either too much or too little detail? And is there enough transition material setting up their battles?
 * I didn't feel like there was too much detail in reading it. If you wanted, you could trim some of the stuff after Santa Cruz, but I think the sections on the battles are just about right. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Tallying up losses and victories is going to be a real pain in the butt for the individual ship articles, one reason why I'm in no hurry to get those done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling - I've been putting off the Graf Zeppelin-class aircraft carrier article for years because it's going to take so much work to get it up to snuff. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 500th GA! Only took 7 years, or thereabouts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I stopped counting a long time ago, but the best I can tell I'm somewhere around 400. Parsecboy (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Might even be more with the way that you've knocked off all the Germans and with all the predreadnoughts that you've been cranking out recently. But I'm not too sussed about it as we both know that the standard for a GA isn't really all that high. Oh, and when you get a chance, can you take a look at HMS Barham (04) and see how the Battle of Jutland text reads? She was the squadron flagship and so I had to cover more detail about the squadron's movements than I'm used to doing for my other Jutland articles. It's a pretty massive block of text and I'm not sure how well it works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)