Talk:Tsukuba-class cruiser/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I should have this complete by tomorrow. JAG UAR   12:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Initial comments

 * "were a pair of large armored cruisers" - are they still considered large by today's standards? In comparison to somewhat recent Nimitz-class and Queen Elizabeth-class carriers which are double the size?
 * Large is relative for their time.
 * The lead summarizes the article well, so no problems here
 * "Based on the experience at the Battle of the Yellow Sea in August 1904 where the Russians opened fire at ranges well beyond what had been anticipated before the war the IJN decided" - missing comma?
 * Good catch
 * "The adoption of more powerful Miyabara water-tube boilers by the IJN allowed the number of boilers to be reduced from 30 in the British ships to 20" - this sounds like the IJN actually decreased the boilers in the British ships themselves and not in the Tsukuba-class cruisers
 * Really? Even with the phrase immediately following: in the Tsukuba-class ships
 * Sorry, I think I got confused there JAG  UAR   12:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The crew numbered about 820 officers and enlisted men" - I would replace this sentence at the end of its paragraph as it sounded like the sentence after it was connected with this one
 * " and Tsukuba was sunk by a magazine explosion on 14 January with the loss of 305 crewmen" - is there any information on who she was struck by?
 * Clarified this by adding accidental in the lede.

On hold
This is a very well researched article with good prose. I spotted some minor prose issues but once they're out of the way I'm sure this will have no trouble passing. I hope I made everything clear enough? Thanks! JAG UAR   18:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt review. See if my changes satisfy your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your swift response, the article is in great shape now and meets the GA criteria. Well done  JAG  UAR   12:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)