Talk:Japanese destroyer Hagi (1944)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 13:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Will review shortly. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• link repatriate?
• "them even more suited for mass production" unclear to me what 'them' refers to here
• "The accuracy of the Type 89 guns was severely reduced against aircraft because no high-angle gunnery director was fitted" could you simplify this sentence? I don't think it makes very much sense to somebody who's unfamiliar with ships. Maybe add an explanation why the absence of a director made the guns inaccurate against aircraft
  • That would require explaining the function of a director, which is a bit outside the remit of this article. A link to director will have to suffice.
• "Hagi (Bush Clover)" Why not mention this in the lede?
  • The lede's a summary of the article and I don't feel that a translation of the name is appropriate.
• "Fiscal Year 1943 " why the caps?
  • 'Cause that's how I always see them in my sources, especially in government ones.
• "for a speed of 27.8 knots" so was this the top speed?
  • Not covered in my sources, but I believe that that was the best that could be achieved by the revised hull design coupled with the existing powerplant.
• "Tachibana sub-class"
  • I don't understand what the problem is here.
    • I answered my own question-- forgot to remove the bullet point
• what makes combinedfleet.com a reliable source?
  • It's run by two published authors on the IJN.

A short article, but comprehensive as far as I can tell. Minor, subjective comments. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• meets all the criteria. Passing Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)