Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Asahi/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 GrahamColm 10:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Japanese battleship Asahi edit

Japanese battleship Asahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese battleship Asahi was built in Britain for the Imperial Japanese Navy in the late 1890s. She served in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. Thoroughly obsolete by WWI, she spent the war on secondary duties. The ship was disarmed in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and was subsequently converted into a variety of auxiliary roles. Asahi served during the early period of the Pacific War as a repair ship. She was sunk by an American submarine in 1942. This article passed a MilHist A-class review a month ago and shouldn't need much work to resolve any issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey edit

I know nothing of battleships, so feel free to laugh at any of the silly things I may have to say.

  • A stanza of Waka: "waka" should be lowercase. Also, why is this not in the body? It sounds like exactly the kind of thing you would want there.
    • Moved.
  • As with the earlier Fuji and Shikishima-class battleships: ambiguous—this could read as "the earlier Fuji battleship and Shikishima-class battleships"
    • How then should I clarify this? I've seen a hyphen used to link the first term to the latter part of the second term, forex: "Fuji- and Shikishima-class battleships", but that's far more common in German than in English. Repeating "class" in both terms reads very badly.
  • 55 water-tight compartments and she was subdivided into 223 water-tight: should this not be "watertight"?
  • Asahi, literally "rising sun", a poetic name for Japan,: "rising sun" is certainly a great translation of "asahi", but "literal" it's not. "Literal" implies a certain fidelity to the letter (rather than spirit) of the original (which would be more like "morning sun"). Rather than change the translation, I'd rather see that ugly word "literally" struck—say, "Asahi, or "rising sun" ..."
    • Sounds like you know more about this than I do.
      • It's not so much the translation, it's the word "literally". My preference is to avoid that word as much as possible. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • She carried a maximum of 2,000 tonnes (2,000 long tons): is "long tons" a clarification of "tonnes"? Even if it's not, it reads like a typo.
    • Got my units reversed.
      • Either way, to a casual reader it looks like a typo by having the same "2,000" for either unit. Obviously not an error, but is there no way to make this clearer? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Forced the conversion to be more exact.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3.6 feet (1.11 m) of which was: "3.6 feet" is surprising to see—are decimal feet common in battleship measures?
    • I missed specifying that conversions should have expressed themselves in feet and inches a couple of time. Think that I've gotten them all.
  • but reduced to 10 inches (254 mm): I assume "reduced" here means "became smaller" rather than "were made smaller", but the latter definition is the more common, which makes this read strangely at first sight
    • OK
  • laid down on 1 August 1899 in Clydebank, Scotland by the: is this article written in American English? Dosn't American English require MONTH DAY, YEAR dates? If not, I'm thrilled. Also, shouldn't there be a comma after "Scotland"?
    • <Snicker> The article's in BritEng, if I missed anything let me know, but I write all of my ship articles in DMY as per modern American military practice—you can take the boy out of the army, etc.—but date format for American military articles is usually DMY. There are however, heated discussions over the proper format for articles covering earlier times. Good catch on the comma.
      • Sorry, don't know what made me think it was AmEng—maybe I was confusing it with another review. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • She participated in the Battle of Port Arthur on 9 February 1904: link Battle of Port Arthur
    • Dang, thought I had.
  • to the 1st Fleet in 1908 and 1910–11: earlier the "1904–1905" style was being used
    • I think that I caught all of the other examples, but I prefer the shorter format
  • The navy decided to convert Asahi into a submarine salvage ship: I assume they actually converted her and didn't jsut "decide" to, so how about "The navy converted"?
    • Nope, then it wouldn't fit the second clause of the sentence that details when the conversion began.
  • fitted with a 19-metre (62 ft 4 in) compressed-air: up until here imperial units have preceded metric ones
    • The IJN switched to metric around the late teens or early 20s, but I can be consistent here if you'd like.
      • The reader likely won't know that. I think consistent's best. {{convert}} has a "|disp=flip" option. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ship began conversion at Kure into a repair ship: can we specify that Kure was in Japan?
    • I just assumed that readers would think that any place that the ship was worked on once she'd been turned over the IJN would be in Japan, especially since it's linked, but I can clarify that. Thanks for your detailed comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I believe.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive so, too. Support. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check edit

Support on prose (but agreed with most of Curly's comments above) per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Several infobox details (especially dates) do not appear in the article body and are not sourced in the box
    • Fixed the dates, not seeing anything else not sourced.
  • Complement differs between infobox and article
    • Comes of working with different sources.
  • FN2: page formatting
    • How so?
  • What kind of source is FN1?
    • Are you sure that you didn't make a typo here?
  • Why is one Hackett source in Footnotes and the other in References? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No good reason. Thanks for looking this over with your eagle eye.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Leaning support. A few things:

Background
  • This and the following section lack dates that would allow the reader to know when they occurred.
Design etc.
  • "Asahi had a complete double bottom with 55 watertight compartments and she was subdivided into 223 watertight compartments in the main part of the hull." I think you should split this sentence.
    • Good idea.
  • There are some figures in the fifth paragraph that can probably use convert templates.
    • I only convert on first appearance; if I missed one, please let me know.
Construction
  • " The ship departed England" While I grant you that Southsea is in England, Clydeside is not. You need to clarify where the repairs took place, if in Scotland please change England to "Scotland" or "Britain".
    • Repaired in Portsmouth added.
Tsushima
  • The phrase "later in the battle" occurs twice in close succession.
    • Rephrased, how does it read now?
  • "She fired more twelve-inch shells," Which she?
    • Clarified.
  • I think the fact that Tsushima was a Japanese victory can be more clearly stated, as it is, it comes in through the British observer.
    • Done.
Post-war
  • Perhaps it could be made more clear that Shanghai, Camranh Bay, and Singapore were at the time Japanese-occupied.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added clarifications to the lede. See if they suit. Thanks for your review, much appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well done. You're welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning Support -- recusing myself from delegate duties to review; the ship shares its name with one of my favourite beers so how can I resist?

  • As usual, pls check my copyedits haven';t broken anything; outstanding points:
    • "They were mounted in twin-gun barbettes fore and aft of the superstructure that had armoured hoods to protect the guns and were usually called gun turrets" -- this pulled me up short; aside from the fact that I think the grammar could use some work, I thought such things were always called gun turrets, so what makes this unusual?
      • The difference between barbettes and turrets came to a head with the design of the British Royal Sovereign-class battleships where the differences were directly compared. The barbette mounting used in these ships was basically two guns behind a thick armored bulwark, with little to no protection above the level of the bulwark; essentially naked and semi-exposed guns. The turret used in one of them provided complete protection, but proved to be so much heavier that it adversely effected the design of that ship in comparison of that of its half sisters. Then people started adding hoods, usually armored, to the barbettes to protect the guns and their crews from splinters and the weather and the hood gradually got thicker and became the roof of what we now call "turrets". As this bit of detail is really only of interest to specialists, I've deleted it entirely and called them turrets.
    • Not quite sure of your method for spelling out numerals. You seem to be consistently using figures for units of measurement, which is fine, but then you say "fourteen 45-calibre guns" in one spot and "Russian casualties numbered only 17" in another...
      • I'm relying on these bullets from MOS:NUM to violate the normal rules for spelling out numbers:
        • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
        • Adjacent quantities that are not comparable should usually be in different formats: twelve 90-minute volumes or 12 ninety-minute volumes is more readable than 12 90-minute volumes or twelve ninety-minute volumes.
          • Yep, okay, as long as there's method to the madness... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure, comprehensiveness and referencing look fine; relying on the image and source checks above.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2013 (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_battleship_Asahi/archive1&oldid=1073364555"