Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Imperial Japanese Navy/archive1

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:21, 25 February 2010 [1].

Imperial Japanese Navy edit

Review commentary edit

Toolbox
Notified: Per Honor et Gloria, Military history WikiProject and associated task forces, WikiProject Ships, WikiProject Japan

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article was promoted in November 2005 and since then the criteria have became more stringent. This article is currently lacking in its referencing (1c) with several sections lacking any in-line citations and those which do still need more. There are also issues with the inconsistent format of the referencing (2c) and with lists of content which should either be removed and/or replaced with prose in the Bases and Facilities section (3b). -MBK004 11:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll do my best to try to update this cherished 2005 FA to the level of a 2010 FA (lots of work!), but, anybody, please don't hesitate to pitch in and improve the article directly. Thanks! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • done with the list of bases and facilities (3b), which were removed to a separate list article. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half done with the process of adding enough references to the article (1c)/ (2c). Still ongoing. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Getting there Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are three links to disambig pages, two broken external links and none of the images has alt-text.bamse (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The three links to disambig pages are: Attrition, Hachette and Splinter. You can find them via "disambig links" in the toolbox on the top right of this page. Alt text still needs to be done as mentioned below.bamse (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text is not done correctly. It is not intended to use the same wording as the captions, but instead to convey what the image looks like to the visually impaired reader. Please thoroughly re-read the MOS page and then ask questions of Eubulides. -MBK004 05:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's better, but there are still some problems.
Eubulides (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's better, but a lot of some work is still needed. The first two images still lack File:Imperial Seal of Japan.svg still lacks alt text (I struck the rest). And many of the details still assume knowledge that a typical Wikipedia reader cannot verify from the images. Let's take the first alt text as an example: "Groups of Samurai on small Japanese ships, fighting each other." One cannot tell from the image that the ships are Japanese, or that the fighters are Samurai, so those two words need to be changed or removed. The second alt text says "Color Japanese woodblock print of a Japanese Red Seal ship." but an average reader cannot tell that the print is Japanese (it might be Chinese or Korean, for all they know), or that the ship is Japanese, or that it's a Red Seal ship. The third alt text says "Western-style Japanese warship." but the average reader can't tell it's a warship. Furthermore, these alt text entries don't describe the essence of the images well. For example, "Western-style Japanese warship" might be describing the Yamato for all the visually-impaired reader can see. I'm afraid that every alt text entry in the article has problems like this. Please remember that alt text has a completely different function from the caption, that any text in common between the caption and the alt text means that there's probably something wrong with the alt text (and perhaps with the caption instead), and that the alt text is supposed to briefly describe the important info conveyed by the visual appearance of the image (and not explain or interpret the image: that's for the caption). I suggest looking more carefully at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, particularly the lead and WP:ALT#Repetition. Eubulides (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully done :-) Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, thanks, but some problems remain.
  • File:Imperial Seal of Japan.svg still lacks alt text.
  • The alt text is a bit too brief. For example, "Radiating rising sun" could just as easily describe File:Jamaica sunrise.JPG; it doesn't tell the reader they're looking at a stylized flag with a solid red circle offset to the left on a white background, with sixteen red rays extending to the flag's edges. "Side view of a warship on a flat sea." doesn't describe the most distinctive things about that image, which is of a three-masted ship with a smokestack. And so forth. It's good to keep alt text short but not too short.
  • Please remove the phrase 'for "Imperial Japanese Navy"' from 'Chinese characters 大日本帝國海軍, for "Imperial Japanese Navy"', as per WP:ALT#Verifiability and WP:ALT#Repetition.
  • Please omit the phrase "photograph of" (several instances) as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid.
Eubulides (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Unfortunately this article is no longer even close to FA standard. The widespread lack of citations is a show-stopper and needs to be addressed for it to reach B class standard, much less FA. My other comments are:
    • Some wording is awkward and some paragraphs are very short
    • The see also links should be integrated into the article's prose
    • The article is unduly focused on ships and their armament; there's not enough coverage of issues such as doctrine, logistics and training
    • The article is over-loaded with images
    • The article contains some dubious claims about the overall effectiveness of the IJN (eg, "In order to combat the numerically superior American navy, the IJN devoted large amounts of resources to creating a force superior in quality to any navy at the time. Consequently, at the beginning of World War II, Japan probably had the most sophisticated Navy in the world." - I note that this is referenced to a book about Japanese trade policy, not the IJN (the standard book on the IJN in this era, Kaigun, argues that the IJN had some strengths, but also some crippling weaknesses).
    • On a similar theme, Attributing the eventual US victory in the Pacific War to "technological upgrades to its air and naval forces and a vastly greater industrial output" is nonsense; the ships and aircraft which broke the back of the IJN's combat fleet at Midway and Guadalcanal were pre-war designs. While improved technology helped and greater output made victory all but inevitable, the IJN had already been crippled by the time the USN was upgraded and started to receive mass produced ships.
    • The history section also doesn't discuss the IJN's role in propelling Japan towards war with the United States (an argument made very convincingly in Kaigun)
    • The 'Bases and Facilities' section needs to be converted into prose. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • done with the list of bases and facilities, which were removed to a separate list article. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if that's an improvement: The topic of the IJN's bases needs to be covered in the article as they were vital to the force's operations. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

There are a lot of images, so my comments on each will be brief.

The template showing the First ships of the IJN isn't directly relevant and can be removed. The See also and External links sections should also be trimmed; only very relevant links should be listed. The IJN template should probably be moved down so that it's next to the JapanEmpireNavbox. DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=> Image improvements
Thanks! Didn't think bringing a 2005 FA to 2010 FA level would be so time-consuming :-) Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Chiyodagata.jpg Source added
File:DanNoUra.jpg replaced with File:AntokuTennou Engi.7&8 Dannoura Kassen.jpg
File:ShoheiMaru.JPG Source added
File:Kanrinmaru.jpg Source added
File:Stonewall-Kotetsu.jpg PD-US license
File:Japanese Ironclad warship Ryujo.jpg Source added
File:RyujoAndHorse.jpg Source expanded
File:GanghwaLanding.jpg Source expanded
File:Kongo(1878).jpg Source added
File:Matsushima(Bertin).jpg Source added
File:Kotaka.jpg Source added
File:Weihaiwei surrender.jpg, not my image, unaware of source. Removing from article.
File:Naval battle.ogg, not mine, but Japanese images and videos before 1950 are public domain anyway, per {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}, aren't they?
File:BoxerJapaneseMarines.jpg Source added
File:JBMikasa.jpg not mine, replacing by File:Japanese battleship Mikasa.jpg
File:IJN Satsuma.jpg replacing by File:IJN Satsuma 2.jpg
File:NisshinMalta.jpg removing from article as I can't remember where it came from.
File:SempillMission.jpg Source added
File:TogoAndFrenchAirforceMission.jpg Official photograph taken in Japan at Gifu, most likely Japanese photographer.
File:IJN Izumo in Shanghai.jpg not mine, don't know about first date of publication, so removing it from article.
File:Kikka.jpg not mine, replacing with USAF File:KikkaNavyBase.JPG
File:I400 2.jpg source added.
File:I-8Brest.jpg removing from article.
Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are prose, comprehensiveness (structure and doctrine), paragraph structure, citations, formatting (MOS), images YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 06:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - while PHG has done an admirable job in attempting to save this article, there are still many things outstanding including the majority of concerns put forth by Nick-D. Those which are specifically egregious include the overabundance of images in the article, the comprehensiveness concerns listed by Nick in his comments, prose and formatting (especially single sentence paragraphs), and the see also links which should be incorporated into the prose of the article where available (having this many see also links leads me to believe that the article does not cover all that it should). -MBK004 07:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist While the article has improved over the course of this project, some content remains uncited and I don't think that the article is either comprehensive or entirely neutral. I do hope that this can be brought back to FA status though, as it is a really important topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Per MBK and Nick. Some work was being done to restore the article but as of now nothing has been done for over two weeks. --Brad (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Many outstanding issues, and no work since the end of January. Photo crowding, lack of references, an empty Bases and Facilities section (not to mention the improper capitalization of section titles), lots of small choppy paragraphs, and citation formatting that is just...weird. Dana boomer (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2010 (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_review/Imperial_Japanese_Navy/archive1&oldid=1109756878"