Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Japan/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:46, 5 March 2011 [1].

List of battlecruisers of Japan

edit

List of battlecruisers of Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what is our first FLC, this list has been in the works since before the new year, being the culmination of our efforts on the unifying topic of the battlecruisers of the Imperial Japanese Navy. This article passed a Milhist A-Class Review in November 2010. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am co-nominating this with Cam. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
they were never laid down or ordered (which is typically when they actually name them). They were still in the design phase when they were cancelled. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 18:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly what Cam said. Without names, I went with the second best option, which is their "yard number", or the number designation assigned to them by the Japanese builders. This is similar to what was done with the Yamato-class battleship and probably every other class, but those ships were eventually assigned actual names (Yamato, Musashi, Shinano), so their yard numbers are much less significant. I have added a footnote clarifying this.[2] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "Yard number 795 [not named]" vs "796 [not named]". Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The names themselves aren't consistent. Every other ship had a defined name – the best I could do here was give a yard number and notate that there were no actual names. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

  • Why are the entries of Hiei and Kirishima top-aligned, and you have a mix of top and center-aligned?
Fixed all. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're consistent, although I find center alignment for these sorts of tables far easier on the eyes. But that's just me.
  • I presume that the commissioned date for Akagi is a typo?
yep. fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would do well to move the (projected) to the Commissioned line rather than the ship entries.
For which entries? the B-65s? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The B-65s and the Amagis.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with high fuel efficiency" reads oddly.
fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's already linked in the lead. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is the status of this nomination? No responses to Sturmvogel66's comments nor any edits to the article for two weeks. Continued inactivity will result in the nomination being withdrawn. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It's been a rather busy week (papers, travel, etc). I've fixed Sturm's comments at this point. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Is there a link for "battlecruiser" you can use in the early part of the lead?
fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 21:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Japanese Empire immediately turned her focus" I'm not sure of policy here, but I would suggest an encyclopedia would refer to the Empire as "its" rather than "her".
Fixed as well. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 21:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in any eventual conflict " any reason for "eventual" here?
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 21:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it Eight-eight or Eight-Eight?
Most of the literature I have puts it as Eight-Eight. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 21:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was begun in 1910" why not just "began in 1910"?
Changed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 21:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuso seems to need a line over the o.
Changed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 21:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But none were ever completed ..." always a little odd to start a sentence with "But..."
Changed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 21:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption "A line drawing ..." needs no full stop as it's not a complete sentence.
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 21:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the Japanese translations, are you using the {{lang}} template for accessibility?
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same comment for the German, use the {{lang}} template please.
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance you can vertically centralise text in those rowspan rows? Looks a little odd to have that info right at the top of each table.
I think I know what you want me to do, but I am unsure of how to do it. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 21:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither at the moment! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Well written article, just a couple of questions.

  • Why no "armor" in the key? And why no "fate" in the key?
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro when speaking about guns uses "inch (mm)" while the table (and some sections) uses "mm (inch)". Why this inconsistency?
Not sure. I've converted all to American units first. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the second image really a "line drawing"?
Artist's rendition. Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please wikilink "Malaya" (but not to Malaya which is a disambig page)?
  • I've been asked in one of my FLC to wikilink "long ton", so I'll ask you to do the same. There is a switch in the convert template, but I forgot what it is exactly.
I'll look into how to do this within the conversion template. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found it: "|lk=on/in/out" will link "all/input/output" units respectively. bamse (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Linked it in the first occurrence. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure whether there should be full stops after non-sentences in the fate column.
fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly add a location in the fate column of Haruna.
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With war looming in 1940, the Japanese focused on more important ship types... Can you add some examples ("...such as...").
Mostly aircraft carriers and cruisers (more useful and versatile). Added. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One more thing, "more important" might give issues with WP:NPOV and is a bit vague, why not replace it with "more useful and versatile"? bamse (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "Kampon boiler"?
the brand of the company that made them. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a footnote could be added since there is also Kampon which appears to be related to the topic, but is not what is meant here. bamse (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet - for consistency - I've removed it altogether; none of the other tables reference the types of boilers used (and that's purely for ease of reading, since the Kongos had multiple boiler configurations). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "(3×3)" in the B-65 class mean?
nine guns in three triple turrets. I've removed for consistency. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could the "796" be commissioned without being built? Possibly "(projected)" should be added!?
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the B-65 table, "Yard number" should either be moved to the header or be added to "796".
Added. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same table, why do you italicize "not named"?
Good question. Not sure. Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've always done it as a "notes" section, then "footnotes" and "citations" subsections. I'll check MoS though. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The way I've found produces the best-looking results (IMHO, of course! ;) ) is to format it like this:
==References==
;Notes
{{reflist|group=N}}
;Citations
{{reflist|2}}
;Bibliography
{{refbegin}}
{{cite foo | goes here}}
{{refend}}
YMMV, of course! - The Bushranger One ping only 17:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like that look. I'll run with it. Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I use as well, minus the refbegin and refend, of course.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. bamse (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Bushranger (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • "[Nippon Kaigun] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)" in the lede - shouldn't this be in parentheses? i.e. "The Imperial Japanese Navy ([Nippon Kaigun] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help))".
Done.
  • Russian Baltic Fleet - should this be wikilinked?
Done.
  • End of first paragraph: perhaps something about "in contrast to the philosphy of the British Royal Navy, etc." with regards to BC design standards - and why the difference, with Japan being so influenced by the RN (and the first BC being actually built in Britian)?
Done the first part; I cannot find sources to back up the second part though I have my guesses (technically OR). My guess is that it has to do with the comparative production capabilities of shipyards; the British could pump out a lot of battleships and could relegate battlecruisers to another role; the Japanese didn't have the same luxury, their shipyards didn't have the same construction capacity.
  • "Most advanced capital ships of their time" - was it only because of their armament that they are considered to be such?
Gun size + arrangement, speed, combination of factors. Added.
  • "the Washington Naval Treaty constrained the navies of Japan, Britain and the United States." - in what fashion? How were battlecruisers limited?
Limited number of ships, tonnage and armament + armor of ships. Added.
  • Might want to mention in the lede that a second Amagi was intended to be converted to a CV.
Done.
  • Are there any pictures of the Kongō class that can be used instead of the drawing?
None that are as detailed. IMHO the line drawings provide a better perspective on the class. If people want to see more photos they can (and will) go to the class article.
  • "Minor action during the First World War" - how so? Did they encounter any enemy ships? Bombardments?
patrol duty. Added.
  • In the tables - is there any way that launching dates can be squeezed in? The launching date is conventionally considered the ship's "birthday", as it were, I believe.
Probably doable, but I'll let Ed know; I'm not the tables expert.
Well, if we want to stay consistent with other lists like List of German battlecruisers, no... otherwise it would be easy :) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these ships and four other battleships" - sounds slightly awkward. Perhaps "these ships and the four battleships of the Kii class" (as I recall that was the class in question)?
Fixed.
  • Not sure including the projected commissioning dates in the table is working or not. I'm used to just seeing "-" in those columns for uncommissioned ships, but that might just be me.
  • "Yansen Butai" should use the lang-ja template, shouldn't it?
Done.
  • In the lede, the B-65s are described as a response to the Alaskas, but in their section it's evident they were already being designed before the existiance of the Alaska class was known. Is there any way this can be made clearer in the lede?
I've directed Ed to the issue.
I was trying to be too concise. I removed the Alaska part in the lead and expanded more below. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "defeat at the 1942..." might read better as "the IJN's defeat at the 1942..."
done.
  • "the ships were never built" - were they officially cancelled at any point, or did they just "sit idle on the books"?
Not entirely sure.
  • "Yard Number" for B-65 #796 - "number" should either be lowercase here, or capitalised in #795 (suspect the latter would be preferable, actually, as it's the de facto name of the ship?).
Done.
  • Note 2 is unreferenced. Probably not a big issue (as it's WP:COMMONSENSE) but it might look better to hang a cite on there saying they were never named.
I'll look for that. Can't guarantee I'll find anything beyond a dictionary definition.
Ref added Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to recall that at least one Kongō's modification back to combat duty from training-ship status (which is not mentioned) was kept secret as it was in violation of the WNT?
I'm of the view that the section is meant to provide a general overview without getting into the crazy specifics. Would adding a footnote solve the issue?
That could work, but it's just a quibble.
Most of this is just nitpicking, overall it's great work and I'll be happy to support once "I've got questions" gets a "you've got answers". :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with most of your comments; the rest I have directed to Ed's attention. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I'm happy to Support. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    1. In the lead it is written "The first phase of the Eight-Eight plan began in 1910 ...". In the first section: "The four ships were authorized in 1911 as part ..." . There seems to be a contradiction in dates.
    2. The lead should summarize the whole article, but there is no information about B-65 cruisers in it.
  • Ruslik_Zero 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the slow response. I will deal with all of these concerns (Ruslik0, Giants2008, The Bushranger) tomorrow afternoon. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 07:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mention of the B-65s, see the last sentence, second paragraph. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has Ruslik been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now he has. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
item 1 has not been addressed. Ruslik_Zero 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Went back to my sources; it's 1910. Clarified for consistency. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:11, 5 March 2011 (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_list_candidates/List_of_battlecruisers_of_Japan/archive1&oldid=1089077788"