Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nagato-class battleship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nagato-class battleship edit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

The Nagato-class ships were the first battleships to be armed with guns greater than 15 inches (380 mm) and followed the Japanese policy about having individual ships more powerful than those of their potential enemies. They understood that they could not out-build other powers and this was their only route for success. Reserved for the decisive battle that the Imperial Japanese Navy anticipated against the US Navy during the Pacific War, they did not see much action during the war. Mutsu was destroyed in an accidental magazine explosion in 1943 and her sister ship Nagato ineffectually participated in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. Lightly damaged during the battle she returned home for repairs that Japan could not afford to make. She was modified to serve as a floating anti-aircraft battery and survived the war. She was used by the Americans as a target ship during their post-war atomic bomb tests. She sank during the second one of these and is now a diveable wreck at Bikini Atoll.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Great work as always. I have the following comments:

"the Nagato class was designed before Commander Yuzuru Hiraga was reassigned to the Navy Technical Department (NTD) responsible for ship design" - the significance of this should be noted upfront, as it's not clear at present
" the loss of all four carriers" - didn't the Combined Fleet also include a handful of light carriers during Midway? (from memory, supporting the battleship force and so not engaged by the USN)
"Nagato departed Truk to avoid an American air raid" - you could note that this was basically a permanent redeployment as Truk was considered too vulnerable
- Do you have a cite for this? I don't know off-hand any of my sources that address this issue.
  - Pages 342-343 of Japan's War by Edwin P. Hoyt note that the entire Combined Fleet permanently abandoned Truk after US forces captured the Marshal Islands and moved first to Palau and then to Tawi-Tawi off Borneo to be close to a source of fuel. Page 335 of Stephen Roskill's The War At Sea Vol III Part I notes that the Combined Fleet departed Truk for Palau after an American recon plane overflew Truk, and on page 340 it's noted that most of the Fleet moved to Singapore in late March to early April after the USN's Fast Carrier Taskforce was spotted near Palau. The movements of the Combined Fleet/Mobile Fleet in this period are a bit confusing, not least as no-one ever seems to have written a comprehensive English-language history of the IJN in the period after Midway. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article gets bonus points for including one of my photos ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Keep on taking wiki-related busman's holidays and I'll be happy to use any photos that you take. How do you feel about Talcahuano, Chile? There's an ironclad there that needs more photos and that's in considerably better shape than the ones you photographed in the Netherlands. Thanks for the quick review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been looking for reasons to go to South America: that seems like a good one to add to the list :) Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I copyedited the article per ~~standard disclaimer~~ copyediting disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this up. But just to clarify, you prefer not to support on prose until you've had a chance to go through it twice, once at each level?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Replying over at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: just a couple of nitpicks:

"the crew totalled" --> "totaled" in US English?
"layers of HTS, totalling" --> "totaling" in US English?
"rumours from spreading" --> "rumors"?
in the References, are there page numbers that could be added for the Lengerer work within the Ahlberg source? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Thanks for catching these little niggles. I write so much in BritEng that it's getting hard to even notice the spelling differences anymore.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, I've added my support as I don't think I will get back to look at the article again for another week after today. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have c/e'd the article, feel free to revert anything where I've changed meaning. The caliber of the armaments are a bit of a mix of abbr and non-abbr, I suggest consistency. There was grammatically dubious initial capitalisation of Turret and Barbette and the terminology used should probably just be consistent throughout.
- I spelled out all of the armament abbreviations, but I'm rather confused by your second sentence. Barbette was nowhere capitalized at all. I've asked for another opinion when referring to a specific turret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - After consultations and looking at reference books, I've decaptialized all uses of turret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Check my c/e for Barbette ( it was in the Armor section). I'm happy with it all now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no alt text for images (not an ACR requirement)
toolchecks are all green (no action needed)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.