Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yamato class 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 SandyGeorgia 21:32, 16 June 2009 [1].

Yamato class battleship edit

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat) 03:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan][reply]
Toolbox

The largest, heaviest, and most heavily-armed battleships to ever grace the ocean. This particular article has been in the works since October 2008. Most of the content was added by me in December 2008, with TheEd17 and TomStar81 adding large sections as well. It passed its MilHist A-Class Review in January 2009, and has since undergone a copyedit by Bellhalla. As such, I feel that it is read for Featured Article Status. Regards, Cam (Chat) 03:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I am available almost continuously until the weekend of June 12 to deal with issues that may arise.

  • Involved = Neutral - ...but I would like to note that after the addition of a little bit that went into the design of these monsters, I think that it is ready for the star. A deafening slap on the back goes to Cam for the excellent job he has done, while another slap goes to Cla68 (talk · contribs) for his help as well! :-) A fun collab all around. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support About time my Iowas had a worthy opponent to compete against ;) As always, a spectacular job, and an article truly worthy a of a bronze star. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Oppose. I think this a great article, but I have a number of concerns. Most of them shouldn't take much time at all to address, after which I will gladly support.

Resolved comments from Cool3

    • I imagine it's customary to do so, but it does somewhat bother me that the title is "Yamato class battleship" but the first sentence reads Yamato class battleships". Feel free to ignore this if it's just the way things are done.
Yes, that is normally how it is done. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The class carried the largest naval artillery ever fitted to a warship, 460-millimetre (18.1 in) naval guns, each of which was capable of firing 2,998-pound (1,360 kg) shells over 26 miles (42 km)." How many were on each ship?
Nine. I've added that in. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a fact tag to the first paragraph of the Design section
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Cam wrote that as an entry into some of the other paragraphs (i.e. it is cited below in the next 2–3 paragraphs?) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct there Ed. It's simply a lead-in to the next three paragraphs, and as such the statements it makes have been cited to death further down. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree here. I can see the "expansionist movements," being cited below, but I think the rest either needs to be rewritten or sourced. The reference to "Japanese industrial power" isn't really borne out. Instead, the section talks about how Japanese industrial weakness shaped the design "However, the U.S. possessed significantly greater industrial power than Japan, with 32.2% of worldwide industrial production compared to Japan's 3.5% of worldwide production... As such, Japanese industrial power could never hope to compete with American industrial ability" There is a reference to intimidation, but I see no harm in repeating that reference, just for the sake of having cited text. Cool3 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, I've added in the cite. Cam (Chat) 03:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • " and was therefore free to build larger warships than the other major maritime powers." This needs rephrasing. As written it makes it sound like the battleships were larger than the countries. It should read "free to build larger warships than those of the other major..." or something similar.
Fixed. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was hoped that these vessels, which were designed to be superior to any vessel created by the United States Navy, would intimidate the United States into appeasing Japanese aggression in the Pacific." "It was hoped" sounds a little weasel wordish. Who hoped it?
Japanese government planners? To me, it is evident that someone in the government hoped that, so I'm not so sure that this is weasel-ish (buuut I could be wrong!) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, that's what I assume as well (it seems evident), but then the article should just say "Japanese government planner hoped that these vessels..." rather than "It was hoped." Cool3 (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it to be a little bit more specific. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Armor varied between enough protection from the fire of a 460 mm to enough to defend against a 410 mm gun." I read this sentence several times and I still find it confusing. First of all, the order of the sentence suggests to me that a 410mm gun is more powerful than a 460mm gun. I think it would make more sense to put the 410mm first (unless I'm mistaken and a 410mm is more powerful than a 460 in which case you should probably explain why that is). Also, I think that the wording should be tweaked a bit. "Armor varied between providing enough protection..." reads better to me.
      • Sorry, I'm the one who wrote that; I rewrote it about five times and now it seems to me that it was worse than my first draft. :) What I meant was that the armor in some of the designs was sufficent against 410 mm while the armor in the remaining was enough to defend against 460 mm guns. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The diesels were removed from the design because problems with". This should read "because of problems"
    • "making the ships of the class the largest battleships yet constructed." vs. "the vessels of the class were the largest, heaviest, and most heavily-armed battleships ever constructed." Which is it? Largest ever or largest up to that time?
I think that the first part is phrased that way because larger battleships were planned but never built (like the H class or Super Yamato class). —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it a bit to say both. Cam (Chat) 04:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "each of which weighed more than a destroyer" What kind of destroyer? I imagine that at some time a destroyer larger than those guns was built. Also, what is the actual weight?
Added weight in the "armament section", and corrected statement to "1930's-era destroyer". Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "over the objections of naval aviators" rather than sinking those objections into a footnote, why not incorporate them in the article?
Because it disrupts the flow way too much to put that large bit back into the main text. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the partially completed hull of the fourth vessel was scrapped in 1942" Any idea how close it was to completion?
None of my sources say anything about it, I'd assume not very built. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing Garzke and Dulin, p. 84, section "Warship Number 111—Construction": ship never named, laid down @ Kure Navy Yard on 7 November 1940, hull was 30% complete in Dec 1941, work was stopped "when the Japanese evaluated their capital-ship construction program, everything above the double bottom was scrapped, four large submarines were built on the double bottom, all nine 460mm guns were canceled as well. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "both Yamato and Musashi spent the majority of their careers in naval bases at Brunei, Truk, and Kure, before participating in the Battle of Leyte Gulf" seems to imply that the two did nothing before Leyte Gulf, but "Yamato served as the flagship of the Japanese Combined Fleet during the Battle of Midway" and "Yamato, as part of the 1st Battleship Division, deployed on multiple occasions to counteract American carrier-raids on Japanese island bases." as well as "On 11 February 1943, Musashi relieved her sister ship Yamato as flagship of the Combined Fleet." clearly show that the two ships were doing more than just staying in port. This should be acknowledged in the lead.
Alright. I'll reword that, since they did spend most of their time in the bases, yet deployed on several occasions to counter American forces. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it is reported that one of the shells may have exploded early" Reported by whom?
No clue. You'd have to ask Ed, as he added that bit. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if I just missed it somewhere, but what material was the armor plating made from?
None of my sources actually say. I'd assume refined steel. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: which armor plate? Quoting from Garzke and Dulin, p. 96, there was:
  • Vickers Hardened - a face-hardened steel armor widely used on the main-battery turrets and in the main side belt. Generally, it was used for thicknesses over 200 mm.
  • Molybdenum Non-cemented - A nickel-chromium-molybdenum quality armor used in armor-deck plating of 75 mm and greater thicknesses. Ballistics test conducted at the proving grounds at Kamegabuki proved this armor plate to be superior to the homogenous Vickers steel plates by a factor of 10 to 15 percent.
  • Copper included non-cemented - intended for the armor-deck protection, primarily in areas where splinter protection was desired. The exact nature of the armor desired was obtained by varying the chromium and nickel content. Considered superior to the New Vickers Hardened Non-Cemented plates used on the Nagato. The presence of the nickel allowed the steel to be rolled and not develop brittle fracture properties. Characterized by very good steel-absorption performance, a criterion of crucial importance in armor plates.
Hope this helps :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of very good information. I'd suggest adding it in to the armor section. Cool3 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In addition, the fuel consumption rate of both battleships was very high." Was the fuel consumption of the Shinano better?
They never got a chance to test it. She was sunk before her trials. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "even though these would have probably been the "most powerful battleships in history"" A claim like that should be directly attributed to the person who made it in the text
It's in the citation in the next sentence. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By that I mean more than just a citation. I mean something like "even though Gardiner and Chesneau argue that these would have probably been the "most powerful battleships in history"" I don't think that this is absolutely necessary, but a claim like that should be clearly attributed. Sort of like if you say "George W. Bush is "the greatest President in history""; it introduces POV problems. It's much better to say "According to Jones, George W. Bush is "the greatest President in history"". Now "most powerful battleship" isn't as contentious as "greatest President" but I still think the text itself should associate the opinion with the person it belongs to unless it is the consensus view among scholars. Cool3 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make a very valid point. :-) I have added something along those lines into the article; is it sufficient? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 18:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great to me. Good job! Cool3 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The infobox lists the class as carrying 7 aircraft, 2 catapults. Does this refer only to the Shinano? If so, it contradicts the article Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano which states that the Shinano 47 aircraft. Which number is correct?
      • I think that this is the number Yamato and Mushashi had? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7 aircraft for battleships, 47 for carriers, I've fixed the infobox to reflect this. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano also states that "To date, it is the largest warship to be sunk by a submarine". This seems like a fact worthy of inclusion in the section on the Shinano in the article, as that section feels a little light.
Added. Cam (Chat) 23:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Cultural Significance" section makes what I would consider some extraordinary claims, but is fairly short. Is there anything else that could go in there? Any other significant appearances in popular culture? Also you state that " Yamato and Musashi have carried a notable presence in Japanese culture" has there been any sort of presence for Shinano?
To my knowledge, Shinano carries no such presence, given that she never actually completed a voyage. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You refer on several occasions to the destruction of records related to the ships, etc. Where does the information that we do know come from?
      • It appears that most of the information came from interrogations/interviews of Japanese officers after the surrender. I've added this information to the article, and as it uses a difficult to find (online) reference, I am willing to provide a copy of the article to any of the principal authors via email. Cool3 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did the Yamato have any impact on any other designs for future ships (other than the proposed super-Yamato)?
      • Cam, did they affect the design of the Montana class? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In some way, I'd think so. I'll see if Tom can add something, or if I can pick something out of the Montana article. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. They didn't directly influence any designs, seeing as American naval intelligence didn't actually know what their specs were, but they did lead to many of the Montana considerations. I have added a bit on that to the 'ships' section. Cam (Chat) 21:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "from 1934–1936, 24 designs were put forth" and "After these had been reviewed, two more designs were put forth, A-140-F3 and A-140-F4...they were used in the formation of the final preliminary study, which was finished on 20 July 1936" Are A-140-F3 and A-140-F4 included in the count of 24 designs or did these 2 come after those 24 designs? I'm highly confused on this point.
Fixed. Cam (Chat) 04:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take it from the new wording, "two new designs were put forth" that these were in addition to the earlier 24? However, the two designs were also in 1936. Thus, " from 1934 to 1936, 24 designs were put forth" appears to be wrong as 26 designs would have been forward between those years. Might I suggest a change in wording to " from 1934 to 1936, 24 initial designs were put forth" or something similar to separate these from the later two? Cool3 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed to your suggestion. Cam (Chat) 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looking at the source, it gives specifics for 23 individual designs, including A-140-F3 and A-140-F4 and the final preliminary design of 20 July 1936 9A-140-F5). I'd assume that the 24th was the final design? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've reworded it to reflect that. Cam (Chat) 21:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "sinking the American escort carrier Gambier Bay and a destroyer escort" any idea of the name of that destroyer escort?
I think it was the Johnston or the Samuel B. Roberts. I have to go back and check my sources, as the Battle off Samar page isn't really that reliable (or neutral, for that matter). Cam (Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the Johnston, where she confirmed 6-inch hits and possible 18-inch hits. In the words of Steinberg, the 18-inch shells were so powerful that they simply pierced the destroyer "like a bullet going through tin foil" and failed to detonate. Cam (Chat) 16:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Once again, great article; I look forward to supporting in the future if and when you address my concerns. Cool3 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is my pleasure to support this article now. Cool3 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cam would know better, but I believe that the authors of CombinedFleet are all military historians and/or authors. Anothony Tully (scroll to the bottom), Robert Hackett, Sander Kingsepp and Lars Ahlberg (scroll to the bottom again). I can go looking on Google Books if need be :) Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a very vague recollection we've discussed this site before in some other ship FAC, but I can't find it anywhere. And I've slept since then. Might ask Tom. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asked. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link. I had Cla68 send me the link for this exact reason. Cam (Chat) 23:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And noted on my cheatsheet also. So I won't have another senior moment... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the armor section looks a little thin to me; it only has armor thicknesses for the belt and turrets (i.e., deck, conning tower, etc.). Also, did the ships use full-length belts or the "all or nothing" scheme? The section says that there were deficiencies that were to prove fatal; I'm sure this is in reference to the "soft bow" that doomed Musashi, but this needs to be mentioned and explained (and any other problems as well).
  • As for the weaponry, there's a lot of good information at Navweaps for the 15cm gun, the 12.7cm gun (which is converted to 13cm in the article—that's wrong) and the 25mm AA gun. This might have some information on the 46cm gun that's not already in the article, but probably you've got it all. One last thing for now: it says that Yamato was refitted "in 1944"—can't we get anything more specific than that? I'll do a more comprehensive review of the article soon. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • G&D have a lot on the armor; I'll attempt to add some. It say that the Yamto was... what? You forgot to finish your thought! :P —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what you get when you have 4 browsers open to Wikipedia and you're trying to do too many things at once :P Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an excellent article which meets the FA criteria. My only comment is that the photo in the infobox looks compressed (I'm using Google Chrome and have a 24" monitor if that helps) Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photo looks OK on my netbook, so the problem must be at my end Nick-D (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just cleared the cache of my main computer and the photo now looks fine. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article on this class of battleships. The article does what it's supposed to for an entry on a ship class- gives the reasons, background, and general specs for the class but leaves the operational details to the individual articles about each ship. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Terrific article, I hope it makes FA. I made some minor copyedits. You might want to check the hyphenated words for accuracy, I was not sure if some of them needed hyphens. I left them alone. NancyHeise talk 18:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns as follow:

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This article is extremely well-written, researched and illustrated—altogether an excellent job. Jonyungk (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The most minor thing ever: "Two battleships of the class (Yamato and Musashi) were completed, while a third—the aircraft carrier Shinano—was converted to an aircraft carrier during construction." Why not "Two battleships of the class (Yamato and Musashi) were completed, while a third—Shinano—was converted to an aircraft carrier during construction."? Is it something to do with the links? Apterygial 10:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that does sound excruciatingly awkward. I'll change it to your suggested way. Cam (Chat) 22:39, 13 June 2009 (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/Yamato_class_battleship/archive1&oldid=1088204189"