Talk:Nagato-class battleship
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nagato-class battleship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Nagato-class battleship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Nagato-class battleship is part of the Battleships of Japan series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Help edit
I have fixed this article somewhat, however there is some stuff to be done. Feel free to contribute, and please do if you can.
96.243.206.236 (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a very unsatisfactory article, quite uneven. Only tells bits and pieces. A shame because these were very significant ships. The intro paragraph is not very useful, and the design paragraph does not contain enough real design information to stand on its own, so I have combined them. Someone needs to do the wartime history. --Busaccsb (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- It now is clearly back up to Start quality. It obviously still needs the wartime history if it is to be brought up to B class. PKKloeppel (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Lookin' like someone's added the wartime history.
96.243.206.159 (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
When the war started for Japan ... edit
In the section World War II the phrase "When the war started for Japan" is what? Inaccurate, weasel words, cover-up? Reminds me of how the American Civil War was covered in Georgia high schools in the 50s and even beyond. Japan declared war on the U.S. and the British Empire (by Imperial rescript signed December 7, 1941 [Japan date])and followed it up by attacking Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941 (Japan date). 74.190.109.98 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Considering that the sentence immediately before that discusses the attack on Pearl, this comment is pointless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, not pointless - World War II did not start FOR Japan - needs an active phrase, not a passive one. Another choice would be to just delete the phrase. But your change is even better and more direct, thanks. Neonorange (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Lost: 2? edit
The info-box claims that 2 were completed and 2 lost, but the Nagato obviously survived the war to be sunk at Operation Crossroads. We don't treat that as being "lost" for other ships that were sunk in that manner (e.g. the Agano-class cruiser article lists only 3 as being "lost," despite the Sakawa having been sunk in Operation Crossroads).
It seems that it should be changed to say "Lost: 1". I'd offer to do it myself, but I have a pathological fear of editing infoboxes. Just a Rube (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)