Talk:Japanese destroyer Maki (1944)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese destroyer Maki (1944)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 06:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

The article is in good shape. I have only minor comments:

• "The aircraft killed 20 members of Maki's crew and 4 rescuees " - the source says that 31 of her crew were killed, along with 4 rescuees
•  Done
• "but spent the rest of the war in the Seto Inland Sea on escort duties" - most of the Combined Fleet was immobilised in the Inland Sea by this time of the war due to fuel shortages. The source doesn't say that she actually undertook escort duties, so this statement either needs another source or to be adjusted.
•  Done
• "Together with her sister ship Kaya and the destroyer Hanazuki, Maki helped to escort the battleship Yamato through the Inland Sea on 6 April." - I'd suggest noting that this was the battleship's final sortie, and that Maki only escorted it as far as the Bungo Strait

  I added the bit about Bungo Strait and that the Yamato was headed for a suicide attack; I wasn't sure how to mention that the attack was intercepted without losing focus on Maki, but the "suicide attack" should sufficiently cover that it was her last voyage. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Rohwer is included in the bibliography, but not cited Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Done

@Sturmvogel 66: I think that you might have missed these comments. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: believe all have been fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to pass this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All sources are reliable.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Spot checks were fine for close paraphrasing.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The only image in the article is PD

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: