Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Katsuragi

Japanese aircraft carrier Katsuragi has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 4, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / Asian / Japanese / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	Asian military history task force
	Japanese military history task force
	World War II task force

Japan Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 05:28, December 3, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Katsuragi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 00:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not sure about the accuracy of saying that she "did not participate in any battles" - she was one of the main targets of two major US Navy raids on Kure
- True, but she was more a victim than an active participant.
  - That seems a rather technical distinction to draw. By that reasoning, the battleships at Pearl Harbor didn't see battle on 7 December 1941, Bismark wasn't engaged in fighting when she was attacked by British Swordfish and the repeated air raids on Tirpitz don't count as combat for the ship. The fact that Katsuragi was attacked and damaged in both raids meant that she was involved in battles. Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The new wording looks good. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's meant by "the ultimate expression of Japanese carrier construction"? While these were the final Japanese CV design to go into production, they were basically a variant of an old design, and weren't as sophisticated as the Taihō or the Shōkaku classes. I'd suggest changing this to 'the final class of Japanese aircraft carriers to be built" or similar.
- How does it read now?
  - Looks good. Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Cultural References" sections are generally frowned upon these days, and the current content is uncited.
- Deleted.
Not all of the works in the references section have actually been used - while this isn't a big deal, I'd suggest creating a 'further reading' section for these works.
- Done.
I've linked the two raids on Kure (the March 1945 one is on my to-do list)
- Thanks.

Assessment against GA criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Great work with this article Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and don't forget to look over Arizona's FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've shifted to support there :) Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]