Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Shōhō/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 19:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• No dab link problems.
• Anthony P. Tully's "IJN Shoho: Tabular Record of Movement" reference link appears dead. The Wayback Machine has several captures of it, the most recent being July 2011.
  • Dunno why capitalization of Shoho should break the link, but it did. Fixed.
• The Chris Bishop and Chris Chant book Aircraft Carriers could be used as a reference.
  • But only previews are available on Google Books.
    • No sweat.
• The Chris Bishop encyclopedia of weapons of World War II has a bunch of good Shōhō text on pages 466–472 but this book is not used.
  • Same issue.
    • No sweat.
• Mark Stille's The Coral Sea 1942 is used as a reference but not his Imperial Japanese Navy Aircraft Carriers 1921-45, written with Tony Bryan.
  • I have the latter, it has nothing that's not covered in the other books.
    • Good to know.
• Some reliable sources give the translation as "Happy Phoenix" rather than "Auspicious Phoenix". Both versions could be represented somewhere in the article.
  • Done.
    • I see you inserted "Lucky" rather than "Happy". Mark Stille and Tony Bryan say that Zuiho means Lucky Phoenix, not Shoho. They say that Shoho means "Happy Phoenix". Bernard Fitzsimons agrees in his encyclopedia of weapons.
      • Fixed, but I made my mistake because I'd not call Happy and Auspicious synonyms. Somebody's wrong about the translation, but it's not my job to sort out, thankfully.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• You could emphasize that the carrier had a very short life, as does Mark Stille and Tony Bryan: "Shoho had a very short service life..."
  • Good idea.
• Another Mark Stille book that could be used is USN Carriers vs. IJN Carriers: the Pacific, 1942.
  • Have it, not anything new.
    • Good to know.
• It would be useful to tell the reader how many bombs and torpedos hit the carrier so that they do not have to count them up. Stille says "as many as 13 bomb hits and 7 torpedo hits".
  • Didn't think that a summary was really necessary, but...
    • How about smoothing out the reading flow by writing it like this? "With Shōhō hit by no fewer than 13 bombs and 7 torpedoes, Captain Izawa ordered the ship abandoned at 1131. She sank four minutes later."
      • Thanks, much better phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• The article should contain Lt. Cmdr. Robert E. Dixon's famous message: "Scratch one flattop".
  • Agreed.
• The article should say that the Americans initially mistook the Shōhō for the Ryukaku.
  • Ryukaku was a mistransliteration of Shoho by the Americans.
    • I don't understand. Are you saying that the mistake is not worth summarizing here?
      • Added.
• Good specs in the Fonenoy book Aircraft carriers: an illustrated history of their impact, pages 246–247.]
  • Nothing new there.
    • Okay.
• I will continue this review later. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Images are suitably released or in public domain.
• Why are there precise metric measurements but not the same precision in standard imperial? For instance, we have 179.98 meters versus 590 feet 6 inches, and we have 23.01 meters versus 75 feet 6 inches. The same type of problem occurs in several places. To me, these numbers appear to be derived from SI, so the metric equivalents should not harbor a false sense of precision. Japan was building in SI units during the relevant time period.
  • Japan was indeed using SI units at the time, but all of my sources use English measurements. So I flipped the template to display in SI. It may appear that the SI measurements are absurdly precise, but remember that a single inch only measure .025 meters.
• The conversion "2,600 tonnes (2,600 long tons)" appears to be broken, or if correct, unneeded.
  • It only displayed the first two significant digits. Fixed.
• It's strange that in one place we have "75 feet 6 inches" but in another we have "42.67 by 39.33 ft" rather than "42 feet 8 inches by 39 feet 4 inches". The decimals give an unwarranted sense of precision, as if the measurement is precise by one-hundredth of a foot rather by one-twelfth of a foot.
  • Unfortunately, the conversion template for XX by XX doesn't handle feet and inches so I had to use the decimal equivalents.
• The 12.7 cm Type 89 gun was considered a 5-inch gun first and foremost; the 12.7 cm size was not how it was first named. Mark Peattie, Mark Stille, M.J. Whitley and Raymond A. Bawal, Jr. say 5-inch before any conversion. Of course, there are authors who write 12.7 cm before 5-inch, so...
  • The Japanese initially used English measurements, but redesignated all of their guns in metric sizes during the 1920s. And since this gun was designed in '29 it should be rendered in metric.
• Unclear: "...predicted 10 May as the date of the invasion as well as carrier airstrikes in support of the invasion several days in advance of the invasion."
  • How does it read now?
• Were spotted: "Shōhō and the rest of the Main Force was spotted..."
  • Indeed.
• Is the Lexington protected by Mitsubishis? "...spotted by aircraft from Lexington at 1040. At this time, the carrier's combat air patrol (CAP) consisted of two A5Ms and one A6M Zero."
  • Fixed.
• Clunky with too many ands: "They hit Shōhō five times and the damage from the hits knocked out her steering and power and flooded both engine and boiler rooms."
  • How does it read now?
• Two instances of "exiting the area" in the same paragraph.
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's my review. I will place the article on hold for a bit. Binksternet (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A fine article you have produced! GA listed. I took the liberty to tweak precision levels wherever there was only one one-hundredth of a meter away from an even figure. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)