Talk:Japanese destroyer Kusunoki (1945)

Latest comment: 1 year ago by GravityIsForSuckers in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese destroyer Kusunoki (1945)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I will take this one. Zawed (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Only six sources are used, and the article probably could go more in depth in the Construction and Service section. It could use more pictures, too. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)[I'm not a reference!] 22:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Should this picture be added to the article?

 
Kusunoki-ca1945-post-WWII-GAG01

-- GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lead

  • ..was one of escort destroyers...: a number missing here? "one of [how many] escort destroyers...?

Construction and service

  • Inconsistency in launch date compared to infobox
    • Good catch
  • The service history is pretty light but perhaps that is to be expected given she was only completed in the last year of the war. Nevitt mentions a couple of aerial engagements in May, plus identifies her first captain, worth including?
    • Yeah, not much to work with here. I tried to track down American aircraft operations over Japan. The carriers were all busy down around Okinawa and the few USAAF minelaying operations that I could pin down weren't anywhere near Osaka or Yokosuka on those dates, so I have no idea what aircraft she fired upon. Unless they're notable, I generally don't bother with ship captains.

Bibliography

  • Can I can get a check on the place of publication for Stille, I thought Osprey was based in Oxford?
    • Botley is in Oxford.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your time reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
OK, looks OK and passing as GA since I believe that it meets the necessary criteria - well written, reasonably covers topic, reliably sourced, and illustrated appropriately. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply