Talk:Japanese battleship Fusō/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 12:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be taking this review. I will use the template below to assess the article against the criteria. Please mark your edits on the review page as  Done when they are addressed. If there are any issues please let me know here or at my talk page. Thanks!

Initial points:

• There are no citations in the infobox, would it be possible to add some in or is it all referenced elsewhere in the article?
  • Going to defer to my co-nom Sturmvogel on that, he knows almost everything about ship infoboxes. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Everything in the infobox is cited in the main body unless I missed something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Done
• "at a rate between four and six shots per minute." Technically, couldn't they have fired at a rate of one, two or three shots a minute aswell? Could we change it to, "at a rate of up to six shots a minute." Let me know how you think about this one ★★RetroLord★★ 12:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)  Done

• (25 ft 0 in) Could we change to just (25ft)?
  •  Done. I had been getting rid of "0 in" in the text, and missed this one, it's done now. There are some instances of "0 in" in the infobox; I'll defer to Sturm on that. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I fixed the infobox measurements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• " 9.69 metres (31 ft 9 in). Her displacement increased nearly 4,000 long tons (4,100 t)" How have the measurements been formatted in this article?
  • British English uses metres for length and long tons for ship displacement, and we've used the same conversions as are used in other ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll do a full review tonight. ★★RetroLord★★ 20:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I believe we've covered everything below. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we have now addressed everything I listed below, i'll now take another look to make sure I havent missed anything. ★★RetroLord★★ 02:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Problems with Aircraft section.

• Fusō was briefly fitted with an aircraft flying-off platform on Turret No. 2 in 1924. When was it removed?
  • The same year. - Dank (push to talk)
• During the first phase of her first modernization. Does the article explain when this was?
  • See the paragraph that begins "The ship began the first phase of her first modernisation on 12 April 1930". Although the sentence you're pointing to comes before that paragraph, we did say that her modernization began in 1930, so the reader would know when we're talking about. - Dank (push to talk)
• although no hangar was provided. Could the planes operate despite this?
  • Sure. They were launched with the help of catapults, and they landed in water and were hoisted out of the water by cranes. - Dank (push to talk)
• Does the ref at the end apply to the whole paragraph?
  • Yes.
• Thanks - ★★RetroLord★★ 02:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a few more things, I think we're nearly done. Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 12:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Final issue I can see, the first two pictures are identical? Perhaps remove the second one? Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 05:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oops, removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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.	Pending
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"She was fitted with five 40" and "The ship was also fitted with six" Is there any reasoning behind the use of She/her and the ship? I just think it should be more consistant.  Done Yes, the article will fail FAC if our sentence structure is "she did this, she did that, she did the other" for not varying the prose. (I've copyedited many FACs.) "dodging an attack by the submarine Pomfret." Is dodging an appropriately objective word to use here? could we please change it? "escaping" - Dank (push to talk)  Done
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).	"This was the standard Japanese light-antiaircraft gun during World War II, but suffered from severe design shortcomings that rendered it a largely ineffective weapon" Could you reference this? The next sentence is cited to Stille, and explains in detail why the weapon was ineffective. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	" It is also possible that some survivors made it ashore only to be killed by Filipinos, as is known to have happened to survivors from other Japanese warships sunk in the Battle of Surigao Strait." Whose theory is this? Could you provide a reference for this bit? This is Sturm's, I'll ask. Cite added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)  Done
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	"Fusō was the only Japanese battleship to mount a radar on her funnel." The only one ever or the only one at the time? Ever. I'm with you, I think it would help readability to insert "ever", but it generally draws an objection at FAC as redundant. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"(This would be the first time Fusō would fire its guns in combat.)" I don't think this is neccessary, there has been no mention throughout the article of any combat likely to involve firing the guns so far, can we remove this bit? Removed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)  Done "Pulitzer Prize-winner" Perhaps change to just "Historian"? Done. - Dank (push to talk)
	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.	Pending
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending