Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Nagato/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 10:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Japanese battleship Nagato edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nagato had a curious history during World War II. She was Nagumo's flagship at Pearl Harbor, but was generally retained at home for most of the war, waiting for the decisive fleet engagement by which the Japanese planned to destroy the advancing Americans. She did participate in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944, but inflicted little damage on the American ships that she did encounter. She was the last Japanese battleship afloat at the end of the war and was used by the Americans as a target during the atomic bomb tests in 1946 at Bikini Atoll. The ship survived them relatively intact and is today a popular dive site. The article just had a MilHist A-class review and should meet the FA criteria. I look forward to correcting instances where it doesn't as they're identified by reviewers. No matter how ready you think your article is, there's always something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose 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) 04:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Why include all authors in short cites for Jentschura but not Hackett?
    • Good catch.
  • FN51: missing italics. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you mean. The footnote uses cite news format so should be OK, AFAIK. Thanks for doing your usual thorough job.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • She meant that in Ref 51 (which has since become 48) The Times should be italicised, as a published source. You do this by entering it in the template as "work" rather than "publication". I have fixed this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaning support. A few issues.

Lede
  • "for repairs. The IJN was running out of fuel by this time and decided not to fully repair her." Can a synonym be put in for repair[s] for one or the other usage?
  • The information, given in the lede, that she was the lead ship of her class, is not mentioned or sourced within the body of the article. I suppose it could be derived from the reference to "Nagato-class" regarding the turrets, but I think it should be made clearer for those who do not go down to the sea in ships. (even cruise ships)
Propulsion
  • "crewmembers" Why is this preferred over crewmen? Surely they were all male.
  • "Her crew consisted of 1,333 officers and enlisted men as built" There's a bit of a mismatch here, mostly having to do with "as built" I'm not sure if you are talking about a capacity, or the actual numbers of crew at launch.
  • Crew assigned/capacity changed over time as weapons were added or removed and with her reconstructions. It's a very fluid thing as crewmen can be crammed in where ever they can sling a hammock. No bunks for the peasants! So I'm not sure what the real issue is. I was trying to give a sense of how the crew size changed over the ship's life.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, is the initial figure the rated capacity (sorry, don't know the proper term, the expected number of crew were she fully manned)
Armament
  • "The turrets aboard the Nagato-class ships were replaced in the mid-1930s using the turrets stored from the unfinished Tosa-class battleships. While in storage the turrets were modified to increase their range of elevation to –3 to +43 degrees". This passage is problematical, and a lot of it surrounds the word "using", which is ambiguous, making it unclear whether it was a straight substitution, the Tosa turrets for the old Nagato, or whether the Tosa were cannibalized in building the new Nagato turrets. Second, the word "were" in the second sentence should probably be "had been". You are retreating in time.
  • "The maximum range of these guns was 6,500 meters (7,100 yd),[22] but the effective range against aircraft was 700–1,500 meters (770–1,640 yd)" Was this effective range per specifications, or has this been determined from post-combat analysis? If the latter, "was" should likely be "proved to be".
  • Max range is simply how far the bullet/shell will travel, regardless of accuracy. Effective range is given in my sources and may be a combination of both, or neither; I just don't know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as she was now" perhaps "as she was by then"
Fire etc.
  • "although when Nagato received hers is unknown." Does the source say it is not known, or does that mean that you don't know based on the sources you have to date?
  • My sources don't specify, so I'm uncertain if the data is truly unavailable because records were destroyed at the end of the war or if they just don't know themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft
  • The description of the aviation equipment in this subsection appears at variance with that listed in the infobox. Should the flying-off platform be listed there?
  • The flying-off platform was installed after the ship was commissioned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Construction etc.
  • The second paragraph could well be split.
WWII
  • Perhaps it could be made clearer that she did not participate in the attack on Pearl Harbor, but remained at anchor, or whatever she did.
  • I think that this is a problem from the wording of the lede rather than this bit itself. So I've clarified the lede to spell out what exactly she did do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pearl Harbor is linked on second use, and a link to the attack article would be useful.
  • Fixed the first bit and the attack is linked in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as distant support for the fleet attacking Pearl Harbor" Surely they had been and gone long since by then? perhaps conclude with something like "which had attacked Pearl Harbor" or "returning from Pearl Harbor".
  • Should the code phrase, as in Japanese, be in italics?
  • " the loss of all four carriers" You have not mentioned more than one carrier. Suggest rephrase.
  • Clarified to show that they belonged to a different force.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After rendezvousing with the remnants of the Striking Force on 6 June, survivors from the aircraft carrier Kaga were transferred to Nagato." It is unclear whether the first part of the sentence refers to the survivors, or to Nagato.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two days later, when word reached Ugaki of American attacks on Saipan, his force was diverted to the Mariana Islands." Multiple issues. First, you've mentioned that she was transferred from Ugaki's command to Ozawa's. Second, the "word reached Ugaki" phrasing creates an expectation that Ugaki then did something, instead we are given the passive voice, which reads oddly in the context.
Leyte
  • "partially due to poor visibility as the defending escorts laid smoke screens, and numerous rain squalls. " It's unclear to me what this explains in the earlier part of the sentence.
  • " Her crew was therefore reduced to less than 1,000 officers and enlisted men." Not sure I get the "therefore". Perhaps "accordingly".
  • "and killed her captain" Rear Adm. Otsuka? Since we have a name … by the way, why no redlink for him?
  • "secured the battleship on 30 August after the Japanese surrender" The one signed on 2 September?
  • Rephrased, actually the beginning of the occupation before the formal surrender.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for such a thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments:

  • "The ship had a length of 201.17 meters (660 ft 0 in) between perpendiculars and 215.8 meters (708 ft 0 in) overall. She had a beam of 29.02 meters (95 ft 3 in) and a draft of 9.08 meters (29 ft 9 in).[1] Nagato displaced..." - I'd have gone for "Nagato had a length of 201.17 meters (660 ft 0 in) between perpendiculars and 215.8 meters (708 ft 0 in) overall. She had a beam of 29.02 meters (95 ft 3 in) and a draft of 9.08 meters (29 ft 9 in).[1] The ship displaced...", which would make it doubly clear which ship we're talking about (obvious, I know, but it never hurts in the first paragraph of a new section).
  • "The ship had a stowage capacity of 1,600 long tons..." - is stowage capacity the same as the amount of fuel it can carry? If so, how about "The ship could carry 1,600 long tons..."?
  • "A coal-burning donkey boiler was installed pierside for heating and cooking purposes" - I wasn't sure what pierside meant - I'm assuming it means "on the side of the pier", but first go around I hadn't realised that she had been moored up, so it read a bit oddly. Probably worth emphasising that she was moored. I was heartened, though, to find out that a donkey boiler isn't used for boiling unfortunate four-legged creatures...!
    • See how it reads now.
  • "Nagato was reduced to reserve " - "reduced to reserve status"? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To reserve" is the common usage. It's linked, though, on first use. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and my comments were all addressed there. Great work as usual, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did an image review at the MILHIST A-class review - all images are suitably licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query Thanks nicely written article, "two forward 14 cm guns were removed" that would be a quarter of her main armament, do we know the reason for such a drastic step? ϢereSpielChequers 17:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those were part of her secondary armament, not her main guns. The latter were 16-inch (41 cm) weapons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops good point. Have you considered using this image? ϢereSpielChequers 20:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but where to put it? The article's already kinda image-heavy, although I suppose you could find space somewhere in the description section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2014 (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_Nagato/archive1&oldid=859517125"