Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Musashi/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Japanese battleship Musashi edit

Japanese battleship Musashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Dank 03:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musashi, one of the largest and most powerful battleships ever built, had a short and undistinguished career of just over two years before she was sunk by American aircraft during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. The article had a MilHist A-class review four years ago, but has been thoroughly overhauled by Dank and myself. Despite our best efforts I have no doubt that some further work needs to be done on the article and we look forward to working with reviewers on resolving any issues that might arise. This is a co-nom with Dank for the WikiCup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportComments
    • Should probably note the capability of using the main guns to fire the beehive shells in the Armament section.
      • Done.
    • after his orders had been intercepted and deciphered by Ultra - strictly speaking, Ultra was the name of the processed intelligence, Magic was the cryptographic effort that broke the Japanese codes.
      • Fixed.
    • On the note about the tally of bomb and torpedo hits - where does the 19 bomb and 17 torpedo hits come from? Why is CombinedFleet.com correct? Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel that Tully and his compatriots are the most reliable in English on this issue as they use Japanese sources, but that could change once I get Lengerer's article on Musashi's loss. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:1938_Japan_Navy_battleship.jpg: what is the original source for this image? (might be in link, but I don't read Japanese)
    • Me neither, but it's not relevant as the photo had to be taken by a Japanese citizen and falls under their pre-1946 termination of copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do like the Japanese copyright law. I used Google Translate on the description; there's nothing there to help beyond a more specific date (August 1942). Given the timeframe, it's likely it was taken by naval personnel. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hiro-Hito_on_Musashi.jpg is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: All sources and citation formats look good. No spotchecks done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

  • The first sentence in "Design and description" is kind of unwieldy. I'd break it into two sentences.
    • Agreed, rephrased.
  • Third paragraph in that section: what is "Kampon"? Is it the company that made the engines? A link would help, if possible.
    • The funny thing is that I'm not actually sure what Kampon is. It's either the manufacturer or the designer, but I don't know which. What I do know is that it's always mentioned in my reference books, so I've just kept it.
  • The rest is all fine, as far as I can tell. Is there any more information about the site of the wreck? Do people dive there or anything?

--Coemgenus (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • The wreck is diveable, but it doesn't seem to happen very often; I'm not sure why, it's shallow enough to easily accessible, but maybe it's just not that interesting since it's been salvaged. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport See my question in talk abut ENGVAR. --John (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied over there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to support; my issues have been addressed. --John (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments
sailed for Lingga Island, near Singapore, via Okinawa, where they arrived on 17 July. At Lingga or Okinawa?
Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Asakura was promoted to Rear Admiral should be "rear admiral"
Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
word reached Ugaki of American attacks on Saipan Is this air attacks or the invasion of Saipan?
The preparatory attacks before the actual invasion. Operation Forager, to be precise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in preparation for "Operation Sho-1", the counterattack planned against the American landings at Leyte Two days before the American landings occurred? Are you sure?
No, the ship sailed on 18 October, the day after the preliminary landings were made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what ships the second wave of attackers came from?
Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What was the impact of the loss of the ship?
Doesn't seem to be much. The group that she was assigned to continued on to fight the action off Samar. Nor were there any extraordinary precautions taken to hide the news of her loss, as was done after Midway and the magazine explosion aboard Mutsu.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Two dup links in the Battle of Leyete Gulf section - heavy cruiser and destroyer. They are linked in the third paragraph of the service section only five paragraphs before.
    • I thought that I'd caught all of these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there are link fairies who go around and sprinkle links into article we thought we'd de-dup'd... I swear. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead:
    • Lead feels a bit skimpy to me. Perhaps a quick sentence on the secondary and other armaments - something like "Other weapons were four turrets of 60-calibre guns and anti-aircraft armaments of 40-calibre and 25mm light guns" ... Or maybe mention she carried float planes? And when she started construction?
      • I don't normally add stats or weaponry to the lede as that's not really summarizing, IMO, but I'll see what I can do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction:
    • How wide is/was Nagasaki harbour?
      • Beats me, but I strongly suspect that the shipyard was on an narrow inlet or river mouth feeding into the bay.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I ask because it's emphasized in the text and I was curious if when launching if the ship almost hit the other side or something... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suspect that you're right, otherwise they wouldn't have made such strenuous efforts to make sure that she didn't travel too far when launching. Unfortunately, I don't have Yoshimura and there's no preview available on Google Books to find out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Service:
    • "She sailed for Truk on 30 July and arrived there six days later, where she resumed her position as fleet flagship." Who was the fleet admiral? When did he take over?
      • Added this, uncertain when he took over, but likely after Yamamoto was shot down and killed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The torpedo hit killed seven crewmen and wounded another 11." Per MOS, either all numerals or all ordinals when you're comparing things.
    • "under the command of Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa, with her sister." ... which sister? Or were there only two ships in the class?
      • There were. Sort of. The third ship in the class was converted into an aircraft carrier. So, yeah, only one real sister.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle:
    • "The ship took on 3,000 tons of water and a 5.5 degree list to starboard that was later reduced to one degree." one degree should be "1 degree" per MOS. Also need conversion for the water measurement.
      • Done.
    • "Counterflooding reduced her list to six degrees to port from its previous maximum of 10 degrees" Per MOS - all ordinals or all numerals.
Overall looks pretty good, but some jargony spots and the lead is a bit short. Once these are cleaned up, I should have no difficulty supporting. 15:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
If you didn't mention what you consider to be jargony spots above, please do so. I'd like the article to be fully accessible to readers who aren't ship fanatics.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got all the weird spots above. The sister ship might be better explained on first mention or you could state that the class was only two ships... that's probably the only really jargony
I added a note in the lede that explains the class thing. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Switched to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Japanese_battleship_Musashi/archive1&oldid=864946855"