# Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Katsuragi

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)


### 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)
Good point, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The new wording looks good. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
"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)
Thanks for the review, and don't forget to look over Arizona's FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

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