Talk:A Glorious Way to Die

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Glorious Way to Die/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bruce, I'll be glad to take this one--comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up this one – I look forward to your feedback. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, on first glance, this seems ripe for promotion. It gives a good sense of the book despite my not having read it, seems neutral in tone, and the sourcing looks good. The lack of criticism of the book may be a small issue, but it also clearly was well-received generally, so I doubt this will turn out to be a major neutrality problem. Here are my comments from my initial prose-checking pass; I'll do some source review and the checklist in a minute. Thanks as always for your contributions! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• "was conceived to repulse the Allied advance" -- can it be clarified who conceived this (or what level of command)?
  • I've added "by Japanese commanders at Combined Fleet" for clarification. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• I put kamikaze in lower case, which I think is more common, but I see that Spurr seems to use the capital, so either is probably fine here. Feel free to revert me.
  • Spurr does put it in upper case, but I see the kamikaze article (mostly) uses lower case, so I think it's fine in lower case. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues. I've suggested a small possible clarification above, but the article is clear and well-written overall.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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.	I was concerned by the lack of negative reviews, but a quick check of reviews shows none, and it would be undue to dig up an obscure review simply to provide counterargument; the critical consensus is clear. The MJS complaint about a slow opening provided a good bit of balance.
	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.	Pass as GA

Thanks for the promotion, and for all your hard work at GAN. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. This was an interesting read. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)