Talk:Shikishima-class battleship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool revealed one error with reference consolidation:
 * Forczyk, p. 46 - Multiple references contain the same content ✅
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * barbettes should be wikilinked at first use.
 * It was linked in the armament section and in the armour section. I've removed the latter.
 * This seems a little awkward to me: "Diagonal bulkheads connected the barbettes to the side armor, they were 12–14 inches (305–356 mm) thick, but only six inches thick at the lower deck level." Perhaps consider something like: "Diagonal bulkheads connected the barbettes to the side armor, which were 12–14 inches (305–356 mm) thick, but only six inches thick at the lower deck level."
 * I rewrote the whole sentence as I think that it, and your reformulation, could confuse a reader about what was actually 12-14 inches thick. See how it reads now.
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * Consistent citation style used throughout.
 * No issues with OR.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.


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


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * All recent edits look constructive.
 * 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 used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * The article looks in good shape to me, only a couple of very minor points above. Anotherclown (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Should all be done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes those changes look fine. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)