Talk:Japanese destroyer Hagi (1944)

Japanese destroyer Hagi (1944) 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.
Review: September 8, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Japan: Military history 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: 08:02, November 4, 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.

This article is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.

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

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: 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:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Asian military history task force
	Japanese military history task force
	World War II task force

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese destroyer Hagi (1944)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 13:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will review shortly. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

link repatriate?
"them even more suited for mass production" unclear to me what 'them' refers to here
"The accuracy of the Type 89 guns was severely reduced against aircraft because no high-angle gunnery director was fitted" could you simplify this sentence? I don't think it makes very much sense to somebody who's unfamiliar with ships. Maybe add an explanation why the absence of a director made the guns inaccurate against aircraft
- That would require explaining the function of a director, which is a bit outside the remit of this article. A link to director will have to suffice.
"Hagi (Bush Clover)" Why not mention this in the lede?
- The lede's a summary of the article and I don't feel that a translation of the name is appropriate.
"Fiscal Year 1943 " why the caps?
- 'Cause that's how I always see them in my sources, especially in government ones.
"for a speed of 27.8 knots" so was this the top speed?
- Not covered in my sources, but I believe that that was the best that could be achieved by the revised hull design coupled with the existing powerplant.
"Tachibana sub-class"
- I don't understand what the problem is here.
  - I answered my own question-- forgot to remove the bullet point
what makes combinedfleet.com a reliable source?
- It's run by two published authors on the IJN.

A short article, but comprehensive as far as I can tell. Minor, subjective comments. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

meets all the criteria. Passing Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]