Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Design A-150 battleship/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2018 [1].

Design A-150 battleship edit

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] and Sturmvogel 66

Hey folks, this is a short but good one. The Design A-150s, known by some as the so-called "Super" Yamato class, were a planned class of Japanese battleships that were never built due to wartime pressures. For those interested in comparing between countries, they would have been the contemporaries to the US Montana class—but unlike the Montanas, much information about the A-150s has been lost, thanks to the deliberate destruction of documents towards the end of the war. The loss of these primary sources has severely limited what can be gleaned from reliable secondary sources about these ships. That said, we do know that the ships would have mounted 51 cm guns, a size that would have made them the largest naval gun ever deployed. On Wikipedia, this article dates back to my early days of writing articles, and has recently been spruced up by co-nominator Sturmvogel 66. I'm looking forward to your comments! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lingzhi edit

All sources well-formatted & reliable. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Iry-Hor edit

I have a question regarding the length of the article. I wonder if it might just be too short for FA, or is there no minimum length to reach FA ? The question is related to the wider the problem of whether or not there are topics which cannot possibly reach FA because too little can be said about them (typically, I have in mind obscure pharaohs). What is the consensus on length ? Are quality and completeness the only criteria when deciding FA ? Iry-Hor (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FA's need to be comprehensive, but that doesn't meant that they need to be long. Some topics are simply obscure (like this one) or simple. According to the (very dated) statistics at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, this would be one of the shortest FAs though. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parsecboy edit

  • The shortness of the article is a concern for me too. I'd like to see more context on the topic - for instance, some of the details on Japanese battleship design present in the Yamato-class article would be useful here (thinking specifically of the Japanese concept that since the USN would be able to outbuild them in terms of numbers, their ships should be qualitatively superior - their insistence on superior ships is touched on briefly in the article, but not explained). It would also be useful to get some of the strategic context present in the Yamato article - that Japan planned on conquering European and US colonies in the Pacific, and needed a powerful navy to accomplish that (and defend it).
  • " for most intents and purposes" - what are you getting at here? The plans were complete as far as we know from the records available? Or there was some minor work to be done?
    • G&D say "essentially complete," which I read as some minor work needing to be completed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these were destroyed at the end of the war, along with most of the other documentation relating to the class." - this begs the question "why"? I know why, but the average reader won't.
  • "With war on the horizon in early 1941..." - this could use some context too - something along the lines of "as war with the United States became increasingly likely over the Second Sino-Japanese War, and particularly after the Japanese seizure of French Indochina..."

All for now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made a few edits in response to these! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy: How does it look now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping - I'm happy to support now. On a less important note, do we need the See also links with the nav template at the bottom? They seem a little redundant to me (but of course, I know the template is there - not all readers will, so it's up to you). Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are a bit redundant, but I hadn't even noticed the template for them and the other post-Washington Treaty BBs down at the bottom. I've gone back and forth on whether or not it's worth writing them up as a list as there's really not all that much in common between them except "bigger and faster".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D edit

It's good to see a short article being nominated for FAC - a bit of a blast from the past! From having consulted various works on related topics over the years, there probably isn't a great deal which can be said about this design. The massive destruction of records by the Japanese military and government at the end of the war means that the historical literature on this kind of topic is limited. I have the following comments:

  • I agree with Parsecboy that material on the Japanese Navy's strategy and the principles which guided its warship construction could be noted
    • We figured that you guys would tell us if the background and context needed to be expanded and the vox populi have spoken! Working on it all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Material on the flaws of this strategy (eg, the Yamato class battleships under-performing throughout the war, and being a waste of resources which could have been better used on carriers) could also be noted.
  • Can dates be provided for when the planning described in the 'Background and design' took place?
  • "two layers of armor plates would have been used, despite its decreased effectiveness as compared to a single plate of the same total width" - 'decreased' in this context is a bit confusing. 'Lessor', 'inferior' or similar might be clearer. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The changes to date look good. I have some comments on the new material though:

  • "Planners envisioned an empire stretching from Japan to the resource-rich European colonies in Southeast Asia" - I'm not sure that Japan had over-arching plans to establish a formal empire, especially at this stage. Is this referring to the planning assumptions used by the Navy when considering its force structure, or something similar?
    • The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere wasn't formally envisioned until the mid-1930s, precisely when the Japanese military became more aggressive, and when the planning for these ships began. I don't think that this was a coincidence. So I've added a link to the Co-Prosperity Sphere for interested readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "required the Japanese to build and maintain a large fleet that could seize and hold onto these territories" - they weren't really 'required' to do this. The logic of the Japanese Government's idiotic policies lead to this, but no-one forced such a decision upon the government and navy.
    • I understand what you're saying, but if you actually plan to be aggressive, as opposed to an inchoate desire to expand, you need to procure the means to execute your plan. So I think that this OK, unless you have in mind some sort of alternative phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest changing to something like "The extensive distances involved, and the likelihood of this expansion leading to a confrontation with the United States, led the Japanese to build and maintain a large fleet that could seize and hold onto these territories" to avoid endorsing this dumbness. I remember a university history lecture on the theme of how the WW2-era Japanese government were total morons, and everything I've read since has convinced me that this was an under-statement. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the Japanese expected that the Americans would ascertain the true characteristics of the Yamatos—especially its primary armament of 46-centimeter (18.1 in) guns, which would become the largest naval weapons in use in the world—they hoped that the 51-centimeter guns would give the A-150s superiority over any other American ships" - this is a bit unclear. I'd suggest tweaking it to note that the idea was to out-pace the expected US response to the Yamatos' guns.
  • "This is similar to the fate of primary documents relating to the Yamato class, which were targeted to maintain the continuous veil of secrecy that the Japanese had constructed around the ships" - the article on the Yamatos states that the plans were destroyed as part of the massive program of destruction of records at the end of the war, and not for any special reason. The Japanese military destroyed much of its archives in the period prior to the formal surrender. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have access to Muir, but Skulski doesn't say that these records were specially targeted for destruction. @The ed17: can you get a hold of Muir and see what he's got to say on the issue?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I checked Muir, who said that the navy "maintained to the end its curtain of secrecy" around the Yamatos by destroying the documents, which isn't necessarily the same as saying that they were specially targeted. I've edited the text to reflect this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that this wording is still too narrow. The Japanese destroyed vast amounts of records of varying importance (see pages 9 and 24 of this expert work for instance), of which this was part. The current wording still implies that this was a specifically targeted destruction. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Nick-D: I've taken out the bit about the Yamatos and slightly rephrased things. See how the changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion to FA Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moisejp edit

Just working my way through the article, only one comment so far:

  • The article seems to be inconsistent about how lengths are written "48-centimeter (18.9 in) gun" vs. "51 cm gun". I changed one but then noticed there were others. I wasn't sure if there was logic there that I may have missed. Thanks, I will continue with my review very soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another instance: In the background and design section you have "90,000 long tons (91,000 t)" but in Armament you have "2,780 tonnes (2,740 long tons) and each gun would have massed 227 metric tons (223 long tons)". In the Specifications section there is "70,000 metric tons (69,000 long tons)". Those seem to be three different units of measure used as the "base" (first mentioned) unit (long tons, tonnes, and metric tons). Also the wiki-link for long tons is after 223, but probably it should be after 90,000 earlier in the article?
  • In the Specifications section there is "and the belt armor was probably going to be 46 cm thick" which does not seem consistent with the spelled out instances of "meters" throughout the Armament section. Moisejp (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They fired 13-kilogram (29 lb) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 1,030 m/s (3,400 ft/s), although the resulting wear of the barrels reduced their life to only about 350 rounds. They were able to fire 15–19 rounds per minute." I know very little about warships, but this means the guns were only good for 20 minutes of firing? How did warships survive with such limited firing power? Moisejp (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes they didn't. Several British ships shot themselves dry of anti-aircraft ammunition during the evacuations of Greece and Crete in 1941 and were sunk. What this bit means is that accuracy is degraded after exceeding barrel life and that the barrels should be replaced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for my long absence from this review—real life has been especially busy. Another comment is the lead feels particularly short, even in relation to the not-long article as a whole. How would you feel about adding a few more details to the lead to make it feel a little more substantial? One idea to expand is the point about the Japanese actively trying to make their ships more powerful than other countries' has two paragraphs in the main text, but all the lead says is that historians say it would have been the most powerful. Moisejp (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try hard to have another look within the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Hi! About IJN vs. Imperial Japanese Army, the other option I started typing in my edit summary as a secondary idea, but accidentally pushed Return before I finished, is how about "Imperial Japanese Army (IJN)" in the lead, and then just "IJN", like you've reverted it to, in the main body? Then readers won't be confused when they see "IJN". To be honest, I didn't immediately catch what it referred to, and had to google it.
  • I'm now mostly satisfied with the article, but am still not convinced there aren't more details in the main body that could be good candidates to add to the lead. I see that you added a little bit based on my earlier comment, but the lead still feels possibly short. When doing my batch of edits today I didn't have a chance to have a good look for such details to consider adding, but will try to today or tomorrow. (If you have time before I get to it and any such details jump out at you (that you think wouldn't feel out of place in the lead), you could add them, but if you'd rather wait to see what I come up with, that's okay too.) Moisejp (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel a detail or two could be added to the lead from the first paragraph of the Background and design section: for example, that warships had been built to help with the goal of building an empire, and that the USA (Great Britain is also mentioned in the following paragraph) was seen as the main obstacle in this goal, or the main country who their "qualitative vs quantitative" approach was measured against. The competition with the US is mentioned in all four paragraphs of the Background and design section, and seems like an important point.
  • If my understanding (see below) is correct that plans were reduced from eight or nine 51-centimeter guns to six, this also seems like a point that could be not out of place in the lead.
  • The destruction of plans and the fact this has resulted in some uncertainty about the ship's specifications would also be worthwhile to include n the lead.
  • The Yamato ships are mentioned several times in the article. Is there any context or comparison between these and the A-150 that would be worthwhile for the lead?
  • Is there anything from last two thirds of the Armaments section that could be worthwhile for the lead? These are all just ideas. Moisejp (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Moisejp: I've added/reorganized a bit and moved the "most powerful" quote into the article proper. I really feel like it is an adequate summary of the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead mentions two historians' view that the A-150s would have been the "most powerful battleships in history." But I didn't spot anything about that in the main text (unless I missed it?). Was that intentional? My understanding is that the lead should be a summary of the main text. Moisejp (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the main text does say that the "six 45-caliber 51-centimeter guns in three twin turrets ... would have been the largest ever fitted to a capital ship" but is that clearly the same thing as "most powerful"? For the sake of argument, could a ship with lots more slightly smaller guns be more powerful than one with fewer larger guns? Moisejp (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly, but G&D are referring to any extant battleship designs, not hypotheticals. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Background and design section says "Early conceptions for what would become the A-150 battleships called for eight or nine 51-centimeter guns in double or triple turrets" then later, in the Armaments section, it says "The design of the A-150s called for a main battery of six 45-caliber 51-centimeter guns in three twin turrets." So the number of 51-centimeter planned went down from eight or nine to six? Should those two sentences be linked better? It seems like the two related sentences are mentioned in silos without awareness of each other." (I do see that it's mentioned that "these grand specifications were curtailed" but it'd be nice if it were said more explicitly in one place that the plans went from eight or nine to six.) Moisejp (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was the intention of the "curtailed" sentence, but I agree that the link wasn't clear enough. How does this look? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks good. I am happy to support now, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2018 (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/Design_A-150_battleship/archive1&oldid=1073366625"