Talk:Japanese cruiser Ibuki (1943)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 22:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd).
• Alt text: Image lacks alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copy violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: a few duplicate links which should be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
  • funnel
  • magazines
  • superstructure
    • Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • fixed some dashes (no action req'd).
  • In the lead you bold "The Japanese cruiser Ibuki", think you should only bold "Japanese cruiser Ibuki" with the "The" at the start of the sentence in normal face. See WP:BOLDTITLE.
    • Oops.
  • "At the top of the island, Ibuki was going to have...", perhaps consider "At the top of the island, Ibuki was planned to have...". "Going" somehow seems a little informal to me (suggestion only).
    • Agreed.
  • This seems a little abrupt to me "The ship's air group was designed to consist of 27 aircraft, 15 Mitsubishi A7M Reppū (Allied codename: "Sam") fighters and a dozen Aichi B7A Ryusei ("Grace") dive/torpedo bombers." I presume this was after the decision was made to convert it to an aircraft carrier and that it would not have been whilst it was planned to be a heavy cruiser. As such I wonder if this might introduce the matter a little better: "Following the decision to convert the vessel into an aircraft carrier, the ship's air group was designed to consist of 27 aircraft, 15 Mitsubishi A7M Reppū (Allied codename: "Sam") fighters and a dozen Aichi B7A Ryusei ("Grace") dive/torpedo bombers." Or something like that. Otherwise the reader either has to remember that detail from the lead or wait until reading the final section to piece the two together (I agree that wouldn't be hard and is logical to assume, just think it would be clearer if it is explicitly stated).
    • The cruiser's air complement is covered in the armament section while the carrier's is under the conversion section so it seems clear enough to me.
      • No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems like a half sentence to me: "Work continued until 16 March 1945, when she was 80% complete, to concentrate on the construction of small submarines." Is there something missing (I assume work was halted).
    • See how it reads now.
      • Looks fine. Anotherclown (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All major points cited using WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
  • Level of coverage seems appropriate given ship was not completed.
  • Lead should probably include half a sentence on the Japanese surrender / end of the war for context.
  • Likewise with the section on "Construction" as this will make it clear to readers unfamiliar with World War II why the vessel was surrendered / not completed etc (the average 12-year old now days may not know this).
    • I've added a bit to clarify why construction was halted in the lede and the last para. See how it reads. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The addition looks fine but there is still abit more I think that is needed. Specifically you wrote: "She was anchored in Ebisu Bay, near Sasebo, and surrendered there in August." Why? What happened to result in its surrender? Anotherclown (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Tweaked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues here.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • File:Japanese cruiser Ibuki.jpg is the public domain and seems appropriate for the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Looks quite good, only a couple of minor points to deal with / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)