# Talk:Japanese battleship Aki

Since this seems to be contagious, could someone explain why one should add empty sections to the article? Thanks.  --91.10.35.216 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think was happened was that we saw you removed the reflist thing and that's something that pretty much should always be reverted. However, I looked and it turns out there are no references in the article so yeah, whoops. >.> Glacialfox (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, please AGF in the future. (It would also help to read and write edit comments.)  --91.10.35.216 (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, and I probably should have checked sooner as well. Well, I guess at least I learned something today. :P Glacialfox (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese battleship Aki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 01:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Review

The toolbox checks out.
The copyright tag for the Brassey diagram says "life of the author plus 70 years", but "author unknown".
I'm gonna need a new source for that image, so deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
You use "pp." for one page in some instances.
Good catch.
"20th Century": 20th century
Isn't it a proper noun?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall seeing it capitalized in any other Milhist articles. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
"Her heavy intermediate armament is why the ship is considered to be a semi-dreadnought.": Give the reason.
Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
"Aki's turbines were already behind schedule and the suspension allowed the smaller and less valuable ship to be completed more quickly and serve as the test ship for the turbines while the battleship could incorporate any necessary changes revealed by experience with Ibuki.": Maybe we could trim a bit, and also make it a bit more definite? Perhaps, if this is true: "The less valuable ship was completed more quickly, and changes made to its turbines after testing were also incorporated into Aki's turbines."
Works for me with one small change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
"as part of the defenses of Tokyo Bay": to protect Tokyo Bay
Otherwise:
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
- Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Passed - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a nice illustration of the ship by Oscar Parkes available in this journal that can be uploaded to en.wiki (Parkes died in 1958, so they won't be PD in the UK until 2028). Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool, but who's Norman Davy with a signature in the other corner?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)