Talk:Japanese battleship Nagato/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 11:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A special Type 3 Sankaidan incendiary shrapnel shell was developed in the 1930s for anti-aircraft use. So was this solely for the Nagato? I didn't understand why this was pertinent to the Nagato otherwise. Also in the armament section, it mentions the ... 3-inch (76 mm) high-angle guns...; From the use of the brackets, I assume 3-inch is the main term for these guns, but they are later referred to as 76 mm guns. In the same section there is a little inconsistency between gun dimensions, some are referred to mm in the first instance and some in cm. Eg. the 127-millimeter gun (which actually links to the 12.7 centimeter article) and the 14-centimeter gun. In the armour section, it jumps between "millimeter" and "mm"
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Duplicate links: Leyte Gulf, Bridge (nautical) Dab links: Sasebo, Hotchkiss, Gunner
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Although listed as a reference, Gardiner isn't cited. ~~Note 47 (Tully) omits the year. Or is it being treated differently because it is a web cite?~~ striking, mistake on my part.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The above is only minor comments to justify my existence really, good work as always. You're getting me interested in reading more about the IJN...Zawed (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stick with me, kid, cause I'm taking you places with the IJN! The battleship Musashi is at WP:FAC right now if you want another dose right away, otherwise you'll have to wait a few days while I work on Nagato's sister Mutsu.

Dude, where do you get the time?! Zawed (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no life; sad, but true.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified that the Type 3 incendiary shell was developed for all battleship guns. I'm not sure that it really fits there, though, and am wondering if I should just explain the Sankaidan shells a bit more when they're first mentioned. What do you think?

Yeah, I think to explain it a bit more will hopefully give it more context with respect to the Nagato. Zawed (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the description to the first time she fires such shells.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that works for me. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 76mm/3-inch gun is a PITA to describe. In British service it was called the 12-pounder and the Japanese called it the 8cm Type 41, although the actual caliber of the gun was 76mm. I was trying to get all that across without confusing the reader between the nominal caliber and the actual caliber. Do you have any thoughts on how to best to resolve the issue? Maybe in a separate note?

Leave it as it is, but with a note as you suggest. Zawed (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate links and DABs cleaned up
Gardiner deleted.
I don't understand your comment about Tully. It has a year of publication listed, just like Hackett, et al.

I was actually referring to the Footnotes section, not the References but regardless, you can ignore my comment which I have struck. I was a dumbass and didn't realise that you only use the year in the Footnotes to distinguish between the two Skwiot refs. Other than those two, you don't use the year at all.Zawed (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the armor section and changed the cm/mm to reflect actual Japanese nomenclature, which was a mix of the two. Left the 3 inch guns alone for now until you've had a chance to respond to these comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded as above. Zawed (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, updating checklist and passing as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]