Talk:Kongō-class battlecruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Does the article use American English or British English? I thought it was American at first, given the infobox and some of the spellings early on, but then I got down to the technical stuff, and saw "calibre" and "armour," among others. This needs to be standardiz(s)ed.

   I've got a couple of them, but i suspect there are more out there. Cam ^(Chat) 02:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

   And yes sir, that will be standardised to British English, though "standardized" would be acceptable under that as well. Cam ^(Chat) 03:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

   • Is the fact that Vickers changed its name to Vickers Limited in 1911 really relevant?

   I think so. company name-changes that still exist are relevant. When i researched the role of United Fruit Company in the 1953 Guatemalan coup, I made mention of the fact that it's now part of Chiquita Brands International, for example. Cam ^(Chat) 02:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

   • You can probably abbreviate the units in the armor section so it's not "inches" every time.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Hmm, somehow I missed this last night. But the line in the design section about how the Kongos were the first BCs to surpass BBs in size is just flat wrong. Every single German battlecruiser was larger than its contemporary BB, all the way back to SMS Von der Tann in 1908 (it had about 25 meters and 600 metric tons on the Nassaus, and in every subsequent design the gap widened). What exactly does Jackson say? Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

   Ah. I've cut that from the text. Must have been my mistake. Cam ^(Chat) 00:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

   Well, it could have been that he meant it was the first time a British-built BC was bigger than a contemporary BB, since all of the British BCs were smaller than their BB contemporaries. Maybe take a look at the page and see exactly what it says, it might still be worth including if the statement is qualified somehow. Parsecboy (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Was Kongo really placed into reserve when she first arrived in Japan? If so, why did the Japanese put their most advanced warship in reserve?

   Mostly because she wasn't actually needed. There was barely any fighting in the Pacific between the Japanese and the Germans during the First World War. Cam ^(Chat) 03:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   You'll want to add alt text before you take this to ACR, though.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Everything is pretty good, the only thing that's really holding this up is the mixed spelling in the article. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article. This is an excellent article, Cam. Parsecboy (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man. Cam ^(Chat) 03:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)