Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga/archive1

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 02:16, 16 July 2010 [1].

Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga edit

Featured article candidates/Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga/archive1

Nominator(s): Dank, Cla68, Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been greatly revised and expanded since it passed GAR last year. It recently passed Milhist ACR and it's time for the next step. This is a co-nomination between myself and Dank and Cla68.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—dab links to Curtiss Hawk and Scuttle; no dead external links. Ucucha 06:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Curtis Hawk will show up as a dab link because our source doesn't tell us which exact model of Hawk was shot down. Scuttle has been fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, even though the page is called a disambig page at the top, it's not a typical disambig page: every entry is about one of the Curtiss Hawk planes, and the page has references. I have to admit I don't know what we've done at FAC in similar cases. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per Okumiya, Masatake and Jiro Horikoshi, with Martin Caidin, Zero! New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1956, p. 25, the Chinese air force attacked the Claudes with Curtiss 75s (which is the Curtiss P-36 Hawk), and fighters of other makes, in the actions in this time frame. Specific detail is not given for 4 September, but this appears to be the model then in service with the Chinese. Kablammo (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think so. China received 1 Hawk 75H demonstrator, 2 Hawk 75Q demonstrators and 112 Hawk 75Ms. The first delivery of the latter wasn't until May 1938 and one of the 75Qs is reported as crashing on 5 May 1939. I have no other info on delivery dates for the other demonstrators, but I consider it most likely that the Japanese shot down Hawk II or III biplanes, both of which were already in Chinese service by August 1937. See Peter M. Bowers, Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947, pp. 355–57.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is no link to FAC on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must have forgotten to save it before. Adding the code now references archive2. Never mind, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments Sourcing looks good; just a few minor formatting points:-

Consistency point: the first 3 books in the Reference list depict publisher location respectively as "Annapolis, MD", "Annapolis, Maryland" and "Annapolis". Choose one form and stick to it (from later references, the middle of these seems to be the chosen format)
Gill book: retrieval dates not required in the case of books (which exist independently of their online form).
The retrieval date is still there, but no matter. Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the References section? I'm not seeing it on my screen. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sakaida and Stille books show respectively "Osprey Publishing" and "Osprey". Incidentally, the British Osprey is based in Oxford.~~

No other sourcing issues Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed; for Osprey, I used Amazon to check the title page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: No metric conversions are given for distances at launch of attacks on Pearl, Darwin, and Midway. Are the miles nautical miles? Kablammo (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are all nautical miles and I just neglected to add the metric conversion templates, which I will do now. Cla68 (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cla68 (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is much improved from the version nominated for A class only a few weeks ago, and I think that the FA criteria are easily met - great work. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support TomStar81 (Talk) 21:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The article is very well-done, and I will be pleased to support, but I think it will be stronger with more context in two areas. First, in the lede, mention the ship's importance: Kaga was one of six first-line carriers of the IJN, with highly-trained pilots, which were undefeated in the first six months of the war. Second, place Midway in context. While there is of course an article on the battle, this one should mention that Kaga's loss, and those of the other three large carriers, was a crushing blow to the mobile fleet. Right now, the article does not even mention who won the battle. Kablammo (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed your critique. I'll work on this later today. Cla68 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cla68 (talk)

Support. Kablammo (talk)

Support Excellent. Doug (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly "plans had to be drafted and earthquake damage to the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal needed to be rectified" could be "plans were drafted and earthquake damage to the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal was repaired". Doug (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed and done, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Phenomenal article. Excellent work all three of you! Cam ^(Chat) 04:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images, has anyone done an image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eight images, all public domain, taken before 1947/published before 1957, as the latest is from 1941. Courcelles (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.