Talk:Japanese destroyer Kashi (1944)

B class review comments

It's B class, but please fix the following. Under Construction and career, in sentence 2, the article refers to Kaya. Do you mean Kashi? Djmaschek (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look over this shortly. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources

2. Verifiable with no original research:

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. 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);
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

• 2a. checks out fine, the presents short and full citations in appropriately titled sections. As the short citations don't link to the full, I have placed |ref=none to stop warning messages flagging up from one of the scripts. Feel free to revert.
• 2b. one query below:
  • What makes www.combinedfleet.com a reliable source?
    • It's a project controlled by Anthony Tully and Jon Parshall, naval historians specializing in the IJN and the Pacific War.
      • Cheers, a quick Google confirms they are subject experts, so all good here. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• 2c. not withstanding my reliability query above, checks on www.combinedfleet.com, the only one available online, show that all information sourced to it are backed up by the source material.
• 2d. again, not withstanding my reliability query above, checks on www.combinedfleet.com show no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing. Those phrases which are repeated closely are official terms which can not be phrased differently.

Images

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• 6a. the only images has an appropriate license template, all okay.
• 6b. the image are relevant, as being of the same class, and so providing a visual representation of Kashi and is suitably captioned.
  • Not a GA requirement, but consider adding alt text for the image.

Prose

1. Well-written:

1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• 1a. Nothing major, just a couple of minor points below:
  • "..as the IJN intended.." Spell out the abbreviation on first use (or add this abbreviation to "Imperial Japanese Navy" in the lead).
  • "..was laid down on 5 May 1944 Fujinagata Shipyards at their.." Looks like it is missing a word.
  • "She was turned over to Allied forces at Kure at the time of the surrender of Japan on 2 September and was stricken from the navy list on 5 October. The destroyer was disarmed and used to repatriate Japanese personnel in 1945–1947. The ship was turned over to the United States.." I'm a little unclear exactly what happened here. She was handed over to Allied forces, and then a couple of years later was handed over to the United States. In the second instance, was she handed over to the United States by the Allied forces, or after being disarmed had she been given back to the Japanese for the repatriation, who then once more handed her over?
    • I've reworded this, hopefully clarifying things for you.
      • Cheers, all good now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• 1b. No MOS issues from the relevant sections.

3. Broad in its coverage:

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. 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.

• 3a. No obvious gaps.
• 3b. Does not go into excessive detail.
• 4. No issues.
• 5. No issues.

Overall, a nice little article. I'll stick the review on hold. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review; I hope that my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your prompt response, the changes are good, passing now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.