Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2019 [1].

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō edit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hiyo's first airstrike was a failure and her second and last was a disaster. The ship had a peculiar history as she rarely conducted operations with her aircraft aboard as the IJN adopted a policy of flying carrier air groups from land-bases to minimize the risk to its carriers in 1943–44. She missed the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands because of an generator fire and survived one torpedo attack before being sunk by another during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a year ago and I've just updated it a bit to satisfy the FA criteria. As usual, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unlinked or unexplained jargon and look forward to working with reviewers to fix any issues identified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild edit

I reviewed this at ACR a year ago. It was a fine article then and it seems only to have got better. A handful of picky points, but a support anyway; well up to standard.

  • "each approximately 153 metres (502 ft 0 in) long, 15 metres (49 ft 3 in) wide and 5 metres (16 ft 5 in) high" Can I suggest that given the "approximately" and the main measurements being to the nearest metre, the inches in the conversions are spurious accuracy?
  • "The remaining aircraft of her air group (16 Zeros and 17 D3As) were flown off for Rabaul, on the island of New Britain, on 23 October where the fighters escorted bombers attacking Guadalcanal the following day." Should that be ',from where ...'?
  • I think it worth a reminder of the date in the final paragraph. One has to read the paragraph two above in some detail to work it out.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Really? It's in the first line of the first paragraph of the section. Thanks for reviewing this so promptly. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

  • In exchange for a 60 percent subsidy of her building costs by the Navy Ministry "American percent"
    • Not sure what you mean here. Is "per cent" a Britishism?
  • Yes "per cent" is used in British Oxford English [2]and some Australians uses it too.
  • sets with a total of 56,250 shaft horsepower (41,950 kW) No metric horsepower?
    • Most times, my sources never use PS because it's so close of Imperial horsepower.
  • I see understandeble.
  • Hiyō's flight deck was 210.3 metres (690 ft 0 in) The "in" isn't necessary.
  • each approximately 153 metres (502 ft 0 in) Again the "in" isn't necessary.
  • The hangars were served by two aircraft elevators. I'm not sure but the Brits uses lift instead of elevator. So my question is. Is this really the official name of the lift? Because in the "Aircraft elevators" section of the elevator's article doesn't say it is the officially name. There is even no ref to support this claim.
  • As a result of the lessons learned from the Battle of Midway Hmm "American learned".
    • Okay, this one truly surpasses my knowledge of BritEng, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to. Can you unpack this cryptic remark for me?
  • Yes the Brits uses both but it is more commen to use learnt same with the British word dreamt and not dreamed or burnt and not burned. However by Oxford you only use the word "learned" as an adjective not as a verb which isn't the case - see link. [3]
  • a dozen 12.7-centimetre (5.0 in) Again the "in" isn't necessary.
  • This latter system was fitted on the port side of the hull, outboard of the rear elevator. The Brits uses lift instead of elevator.
  • their launching point 180 miles (290 km) north of Lunga. shouldn't the metric unit be first? Or do you mean nautical miles? if not why isn't there nautical miles? If yes why are there not miles in it?
  • At 05:15 each ship launched Hmm was this the local time or Japan's time?
  • when Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa learned Again "American learned plus Vice Admiral"
  • the Japanese turned away to the northwest to regroup American northwest"
  • Vice Admiral Marc Mitscher ordered Again "American Vice Admiral"
  • 56,250 shp (41,950 kW) In the infobox no metric horsepower?
  • 6 × twin 12.7 cm (5.0 in) dual-purpose guns In the infobox the oh isn't necessary.
  • Belt: 50 mm (2.0 in) In the infox the oh after the two isn't necessary.
  • The Americans recaptured Attu before the fleet could depart to counterattack. "American counterattack" - see link [4]

That's me Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sturmvogel 66: Hey Sturm, you know you forgot two of my comments. The first one is in the when Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa learned. You forgot to change the American learned with learnt. Second is you forgot the The Americans recaptured Attu before the fleet could depart to counterattack. sentence where I mentioned to replace the American counterattack with the Britich one (counter-attack). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Captions are fine. Kees08 (Talk) 07:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking these out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, should be good on images. Kees08 (Talk) 00:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Not sure it makes sense to simply state "Aircraft carried: 53" given the variance
    • By their nature aircraft carrier capacities vary depending on the mix of aircraft aboard.
  • Be consistent in use of & vs "and" in short cites
    • Hoist by my own petard!
  • What makes combinedfleet a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's co-owned by a published expert on the topic and it cannot be edited by outsiders. Thanks for checking on these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "with the loss of 247 officers and ratings." I might add something like ", "about a fifth of her complement."
  • I would add some sort of introductory phrasing, say, "After conversion from an ocean liner, ..." to the start of the second paragraph of Design and description.
  • In "Construction and career", I might make it clearer that (as I surmise) she was never finished as an ocean liner, but was purchased and converted while still under construction. Also, can anything more be said about what she would have been as an ocean liner? Did it resemble some of the line's other ships?
  • Don't have much info available, but I've added most of what I've got.
  • "In the meantime, Captain Michio Sumikawa relieved Beppu on 30 November.[14][16]" I would cut the first three words.
  • " as was Sakamaki and his staff" I would say "were" not "was"
  • "The ship was under repair at Yokosuka until 15 September, which included the installation of additional 2.5 cm Type 96 AA guns," Technically, "which included" refers to nothing. Suggest changing "was under repair" to "underwent repairs"
  • Reworked the whole sentence, see how it reads now.
  • "The ship arrived there on 22 December and disembarked her aircraft before proceeding on to Saipan to deliver more aircraft.[14][20] " From Singapore to Truk, fine, but Saipan is not "on" given the direction, but involves something of a reversal of course.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading this so closely. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parsecboy edit

Not much, mostly nitpicks:

  • I wonder if the launching field should be moved from the Izumo Maru portion of the box to the Hiyo portion
  • It seems somewhat disjointed to jump basically from "designed to be converted" to "After her conversion" - it would be worthwhile to explain a bit of what happened
    • What do you mean? Why the IJN purchased her when it did? No idea, none of my sources address that issue. They talk about the covert program for converting ocean liners to auxiliary carriers, but I'm saving the details on that for the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rear Admiral Kakuji Kakuta's flagship" - as I recall, the MoS advises against three links next to each other, so you might refactor to "flagship of Rear Admiral Kakuji Kakuta"
  • "the New Zealand minesweeper Moa" - New Zealand doesn't seem right to me, but I can't think of what would be the correct demonym - "the Kiwi minesweeper Moa"? haha
  • Link submarine, torpedo, boiler room. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, linked in the lede, OK.

All done except for one noted above. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2019 (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_aircraft_carrier_Hiyō/archive1&oldid=890225140"