Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier

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 by Nikkimaria (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier edit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier/archive1

The Shokaku-class carriers were completed just before the beginning of the Pacific War and have been judged to have been the best aircraft carriers in the world at that time. They participated in almost every carrier battle during the war until their loss in 1944. Both ships missed the Battle of Midway and thus, by default, became the core of the IJN's striking forces for the rest of the war. They sank two of the four American fleet carriers lost during the war, plus a British light carrier. I'd like reviewers to evaluate how appropriate the level of detail is for a ship-class article, see if I missed any jargon and look for any infelicities of prose and this will be headed for FAC after this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Sturm, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, "was a pair of aircraft carriers" --> "were a pair of aircraft carriers"?
in the lead, "With the exception of the Battle of Midway, they participated in almost every major naval..." Is the word "almost" necessary here, given that you have already noted the exception in the start of the sentence?
in the lead "replace her aircraft lost during the battle..." Is the word "her" necessary here?
in the lead "Neither attempt succeeded and the Japanese were able to withdraw..." --> "Neither attempt succeeded and the Japanese withdrew..." ?
"as part of the 1937 3rd Naval Armaments Supplement Program..." the closeness of the "1937" to "3rd" seems to distract the eye a little, I wonder if you could move 1937. For instance, perhaps "in 1937 as part of the 3rd Naval Armaments Supplement Program". Would that work?
"tasked to the less demanding" --> "tasked with the less demanding"?
"which forced Zuikaku to return to with her sister..." I think this is missing a word here, possibly "Japan"? Can you please confirm?
"The American landings on Guadalcanal and Tulagi on 7 August..." probably best to include the year here
" American carriers USS Enterprise and USS Saratoga..." is the second "USS" necessary here? I note earlier in the prose you use this construction: " the carriers USS Yorktown and Lexington"
you appear to use several different piped links to refer to "Truk"; I suggest just one, on the first mention;
inconsistent presentation/caps "Operation Mo" v. "Operation KE"
"sailed for Tawi-Tawi in mid-May in the Philippines" --> "sailed for Tawi-Tawi, in the Philippines, in mid-May"?
"recover the Division's few..." --> "recover the division's few"?
per WP:NUMNOTES avoid starting sentences with figures, for instance here: "49 officers and 794 crewmen..."
- Excellent suggestions; I've implemented all of them. Many thanks for your through review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Great work, reads well and covers the class comprehensively. I have a few mostly grammar quibbles[reply]

suggest linking counterattack in the lead
this is a very long sentence and has no punctuation Two months later they attempted to support a major offensive by the Imperial Japanese Army to push the United States Marines off Guadalcanal in the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands where they crippled one US carrier and damaged another in exchange for damage to Shōkaku and a light carrier.
suggest The two Shōkaku-class carriers were ordered as part of the 3rd Naval Armaments Supplement Program of 1937
suggest The consequent airstrike cost only one dive bomber but sank the destroyer and damaged Neosho badly enough that she had to be scuttled a few days later.
suggest The airgroups of the two Japanese carriers were decimated in the battle, having just been describing the US carriers, it is a bit unclear at present.
but their target location was bad comes across as a bit colloquial. Inaccurate?
suggest large number of airborne American aircraft
suggest hidden by the overcast conditions
suggest The First Carrier Division sailed for Tawi-Tawi in the Philippines in mid-May.
the green pilots is a bit colloquial, inexperienced? could do with a comma after pilots
Dickson and Gill need an ISBN/ISSN/OCLC
no alt text (not ACR requirement)
all other toolchecks came out ok

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded things, sometimes along the lines that you suggest, sometimes not. See if they work for you. Thanks for your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of typos, but I fixed them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This looks very good to me. Just a few minor comments:
- "Jentschura, Hansgeorg; Jung, Dieter & Mickel, Peter (1977). Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869–1945. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute", slight inconsistency in presentation of publisher. Consider you use "United States Naval Institute" here vs "Naval Institute Press" in most other entries.
  - The name changed before the publication of the more recent books.
- "Drawing on their experience with their existing...", consider more simply "Drawing on experience with their existing..." (suggestion only)
- Some inconsistency in presentation of "air group" vs "airgroups" (1 instance).
- Is there a missing word here: "The airgroups of the sisters were decimated in the battle, which forced Zuikaku to return to Japan with her Shōkaku..."?
- "and 2 recon aircraft..." language seems a little informal using the abbrev "recon" here, suggest writing in full. Anotherclown (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now we just need an image review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images edit

File:Japanese aircraft carrier shokaku 1941.jpg, I'm a little uncomfortable with this one. Everything appears in order, but all the details are in Japanese; I would strongly recommend finding someone to provide a translation into English, particularly for the Source.
- Done
File:Fig of japanese aircraft carrier Shokaku in 1942.gif, great image, well used and captioned. Appropriately licensed.
File:Japanese.aircraft.carrier.zuikaku.jpg, licensing all appears in order, description and source details could do with tidying, but no objectionable concerns.
File:Zuikaku November 1941-cropped.jpg, appropriately licensed and captioned.
File:Bridge of IJN CV ZUIKAKU with 21-GO rader.jpg, appropriately licensed and captioned.
File:Carrier shokaku.jpg, the license claims that this is "This file is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as part of that person's official duties." However, from what I can tell from the description, the image was captured from Attu, and therefore presumably the photograph was taken by a Japanese sailor. I'm sure the image is free, but should have a {{PD-1996}} tag, rather than the {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. Also of concern for this image is the fact that the source link is broken. this link should replace it, I believe.
- Thanks for providing the link with which I've updated the picture's info. This is where things get annoying as there is no actual license available to use that covers this situation. See this discussion status of war booty aerial reconnaissance photos I had at the village pump almost a year ago. I'll change it to PD-1996 in the meantime.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:BattleCoralSea Shokaku g17031.jpg, appropriately licensed and captioned, but as with the one before it, the source link needs updating.
File:Shokaku Coral Sea battle damage 1.jpg, appropriately licensed and captioned, though the lack of date of publication of the source is a worry.
File:Shokaku Santa Cruz fire.jpg, appropriately licensed and captioned, though the lack of date of publication of the source is a worry.
File:Japanese carrier under attack during Battle of Cape Engaño 1944.jpg, appropriately licensed, your caption says it is Zuikaku, while the image description only says "most probably Zuikaku", do you have confirming evidence?
- Only by process of elimination as that's clearly not one of the three light carriers sunk that day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lowering the flag on Zuikaku.jpg, despite being a featured picture, I'm not sure about the license on this one; {{PD-USGov}} states that "This only applies to original works of the Federal Government..", but the image description says that it was "Donated to the US Navy Historical Center by Kazutoshi Hando." Again, {{PD-1996}} would seem more appropriate, and again the source link needs updating.
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to have alt text for any of the images used. Harrias ^talk 09:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a FAC requirement, so I don't bother as I try to use informative captions. Thanks for all of your assistance. Feel free to help out here more often with image reviews and the like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, I though FAC required adherence to the MOS for images, but looking at it, I see I was mistaken. As you say, your captions are very informative anyway. Although, as someone who has used a screen reader, even with good captions, an image without an alt tag is a nightmare, as the reader tries to read the file name. Could I suggest just putting |alt=as caption maybe? Harrias ^talk 18:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The images are all now appropriately licensed and captioned. Harrias ^talk 18:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.