Talk:Ise-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 00:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this article over the weekend Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm doing some quick copyediting, Nick. I don't understand this one, guys: "They returned home on 14 June and preliminary plans began to replace the lost carriers with hybrid carriers converted from battleships." - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• "In November the ship began working up, together with the newly completed Hyūga the following month and rejoined the 2nd Battleship Division.": When did she rejoin the 2nd Battleship Division? Did Hyūga rejoin it as well? I can't tell how long the two ships are "together". - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• I got down to The Battle of Cape Engaño. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking this over before ACR, Dan. I've rephrased both, so see how they read now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that's great Sturm. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks also from me for those comments Dan. I have the following comments:

• "Another issue was that Japanese sailors had problems loading the 45.36-kilogram (100.0 lb) shells used in the manually loaded 152-millimetre (6 in) secondary guns used in the Fusō class and earlier designs at a high rate over time" - this sentence is a bit complex ('at a high rate over time' at the end in particular)
• "To save weight the forecastle deck was shortened so that the lower midships gun turret was lower than in the Fusō class which reduced the crew's accommodations despite an significant increase in the crew's numbers" - needs a comma or two
• "Naval historian Fukui Shizuo believed that these ships had the worst habitability of any Japanese capital ship" - can more be said about why they were so uncomfortable?
• "Each of these shells weighed 673.5 kilograms (1,485 lb) and had a muzzle velocity of 770–775 meters per second" - did the guns or shells have this velocity?
• "The Japanese plan for the defence of the Philippines envisioned that the surviving carriers would be used to lure the American carrier forces away from the invasion area to a position where they could be attacked by land-based aircraft" - I thought that the main objective was to lure the American fast carriers away from Leyte Gulf so that the main body of the IJN could attack the transports? (with the Japanese carrier force being regarded as expendable)
• "The other carrier air groups were not in much better shape and the Japanese decided to retain the aircraft ashore" - this needs some context (the previous sentence mentions land-based aircraft, and not plans to make use of carrier aircraft)
• It would be worth noting that the two BBs were escorted by other Japanese warships during Operation Kita
• "although it availed them little when they were attacked again by American carrier aircraft in July" - the US forces took heavy losses during the raids on Kure (about 100 aircraft), with anti-aircraft gunfire accounting for most of these; do the source say that these BBs AA defences were ineffective? The scale of the attacks was pretty huge. You might want to add a link to Bombing of Kure (July 1945) BTW. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that I've addressed all of your comments; see how they read. Neither battleship was credited with shooting down any aircraft during the attacks in July, so I can't really speak as to how effective their AA fire was. Link added. Thanks for your thorough comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest removing the claim then: most accounts of this operation comment on the intensive AA fire which greated the American force, and the raids on the Kure area were by far the most costly of the USN's carrier attacks on Japan (most of which met little opposition), so it can't be assumed that the battleships AA gunners were ineffective. Not much could have survived attacks of the scale - and skill - which the USN launched against Kure (sorry for the inexcusably slow response BTW). Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
      • There's no claim to remove. Only a statement that their reinforced AA defenses didn't stop the Americans from sinking them. And I can't see how that's objectionable. There's no hurry about completing the review, so your apology was unnecessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
        • "availed them little" suggests that the AA fire was ineffective, when we don't know whether this was the case (it certainly didn't save the ships, but given the scale of the attack nothing probably could have). However, I don't want to hold up this article's promotion further, so I'll close this review as successful. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: