Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Haruna/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 Karanacs 14:47, 15 September 2010 [1].

Japanese battleship Haruna edit

Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Haruna/archive1

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haruna was - along with her sisters of the Kongo class battlecruisers - one of the workhorses of the Japanese battleships during WWII. She was everywhere - escorting carriers, bombarding airfields, deploying to counter American carrier raids, fighting escort carriers and destroyers - before she was sunk by air attack in the last days of the war.

This article has been in the works for quite a long time, with the first round of major changes occurring as far back as February 2009. The article passed its GAN in February 2009, its MilHist ACR in March 2009. The article has also undergone two extensive copyedits; the first by User:Bellhalla in April 2009, and the second by User:Dank over the last month. After a long period of tweaking, polishing, fixing and modifying, I feel that the article is close to FA Standards. I look forward to working with the reviewers; thank-you in advance. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: I saw that most of the photos are credited to a Shizuo Fukui, and because he has been dead at least 50 years the photos are public domain under Japanese copyright law. Given the conditions, I can assume that is true, but do you have a source that gives the year he died? That would clear up any ambiguity for me.

I'm afraid I can't be of much help with the image sourcing, as I'm not the original uploader of most of them (Cla68 did most of them). However, I have left a message on User:Cla68's talkpage about the issue. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oda Mari actually telephoned the publisher of the book from which the photos came from (Kure Maritime Museum) and the museum confirmed that the photos are public domain. I don't know where this is recorded but Oda Mari would be the one to ask. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I called the publisher and the museum, but it's not from them that I learned the photos were PD. It was Agency for Cultural Affairs. See article 23 and the second paragraph from the bottom of the section. The top page of the EL is this. Oda Mari (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Oda-san. We probably need to include those links in all the IJN ship photo image files. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 until resolved. According to what's stated above then, the photos are all mis-tagged. The templates on the photos currently state that the copyright lapses 50 years after the death of the creator, which is why I asked for confirmation of Shikuo Fujui's death on or before 1960. According to what is listed above though, that is not the reason why the photos are in the public domain. They need to be tagged with {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} if the photos were published before December 31, 1956. Then the publication date of Japanese Naval Warship Photo Album: Battleships and Battle Cruisers is the controlling piece of information, and should be added to the source information. As long as that book was published before the cutoff date, then we can state with certainty that the photos are all public domain. In other words, you still have some work to do to satisfy me that the copyright information is correct. Imzadi 1979 → 05:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Article 23 linked above puts it as 10 years after the photo was taken it goes into public domain. Seeing as all these photos are 65+ years old, it's pretty clear that they're in the Public Domain. I will, however, change the PD templates for the photos anyways. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 19:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We still need a publication date for the book to be added to the source information on all of the photos before I can strike the oppose. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The publication date has nothing to do with the question whether the photos are PD or not. The publisher has no right on the photos if the photos were taken before December 31, 1956. When I called the Agency for Cultural Affairs, the woman I talked with said it was perfectly OK to copy those PD photographs from recently, even if it was yesterday, published books and use them. Because the photos are PD and copyright free, If you cannot believe me, ask them. [2] via E-mail. The address is voice@bunka.go.jp. Oda Mari (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template says that they have to be published before December 31, 1956 to be in the PD. Tell me that the book containing those photo meets that criterion and you're all set. Of course we've been ignoring an issue here that I've recently remembered: they could be copyrighted in the US. For that, the photos need to be in the PD in their source country before January 1, 1996. On that date, any works that weren't in the PD in the source country had their US copyright status restored. Yes, as crazy as that sounds, they might be PD in Japan, but they could still carry a US copyright that can be enforced in the US. the correct tag on Commons is {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} to be added after the appropriate foreign PD tag if this is the case. US copyright starts, not on the date of creation, but on the date of first publication. That's why the publication date on that book will be so important. So, find me that date. Tag the photos with the additional tag if needed. Then we'll re-analyze the situation and get the proper solution Imzadi 1979 → 19:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to go through this on every single Japanese ship FAC... please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1 and [3]. It's an either/or: if they were published in the ten years after, they are PD because that's before 1956. If they weren't, they are PD because they weren't published in that ten-year span. As a result, they are definitely PD and therefore not eligible to have their copyright renewed under the URAA. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the publication date on the book? Everyone keeps dancing around a simple question. Answer that question, and the issue is resolved. Don't answer it, and my oppose stands on criterion 3 grounds. US Copyright is 100% independent of Japanese copyright, but influenced by it. Wikipedia has to follow US copyright because the servers are located in Florida. If the date of publication is old enough, yet no one seems to answer that question, then all PD concerns are satisfied. I can't find a publication date online for that book, and trust me, I tried so that I could strike my oppose. Imzadi 1979 → 04:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book was published in 2005.[4] (search for the author too!) This is an instance quite similar to the British Crown Copyright. Crown Copyrights on certain images have expired worldwide because they were taken before 1 June 1957. Even when they lack publishing dates, etc, I don't see why CC images would be a problem when the British government—the possible copyright holder—has stated that they consider these to be PD worldwide. In a similar vein, if the Japanese government—almost certainly the copyright holder in this case—consider the images to be PD, I don't see where the problem lies. Arguing over them seems academic and pedantic when the copyright holder has specifically said they are PD.

I'll also note that multiple CC images have passed GANs and FACs (see here), and multiple Japanese images similar to these have passed GANs and FACs (see here), with image reviews from User:Elcobbola and User:Jappalang (among others). Sorry to make this such a hassle. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fukui wrote this book in 1956. The book looks like this. See these too. [5], [6], and [7]. The book has 21 photos. It is possible the Haruna photos were used in the book. But you have to check it by yourself. You can buy the book at here. Of course, the photos might have been used in some newspaper or magazines before the WW2 ended. But it is almost impossible to check the first publication of the photos. Ja WP has an article on Fukui. G translation is here. I called the museum again and they would call back in a few days. Oda Mari (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed something. Fukui was born in 1913 and joined the navy in 1938. How could he take those 1934, 1914, 1915, 1928, 1935 photos? Especially 1914 and 1915 photos. It's impossible. And unlike today, it must be difficult to take such photos except the navy personnel then. Creator/s should be someone else. Probably several photographers. BTW, according to the ja article, Fukui's third son is Takeo Fukui. Oda Mari (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The museum called back and said all of their photographs were PD. As for the copyright holder before the end of WW2, it would be Ministry of the Navy of Japan. I think almost all naval ship photos belonged to them. Oda Mari (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work above-and-beyond, Oda. Elcobbola has cleared the images.[8] I'm not sure why Fukui was listed as the author... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to commons:Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto, there is an interesting point about old Japanese photographs. Any photographs published before 1956 are in the public domain. Photographs created before 1946 and not published 10 years after that also fall into the public domain. This means that any Japanese photograph created during WW2 and before are in Japanese public domain before 1996 (and hence PD-US as well); basically, if they were unpublished before 1956, their 10 years of allowance would have elapsed, and if they were published before 1956...

Now, one possible problem could be a simultaneous publishing of the photograph before 1956 (i.e. it was published by its copyright holder in Japan and within one month in US before 1956). In that case, the subject would be treated as a US publication under US law and receive US copyright protection (if the laws were complied with). I do not see that is the case with these Haruna photographs.

Regardless, one should still supply verifiable information on the source (especially this), author, and date of these photos. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you folks for clearing this all up. Copyright is something that's very important to be certain about, and we need hard data and sources to verify the status. As both a semi-professional photographer and a Wikipedian in my spare time, I see both sides of the copyright and licensing coin. I'm glad that everything has been verified and confirmed now. I didn't care what previous FACs or ACRs said and did about other articles, I only cared about this article at this FAC. Thank you for dotting the Is and crossing the Ts on this issue. Imzadi 1979 → 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link checking: There are no disambiguations links present in the article, and all external links work. Imzadi 1979 → 07:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Infobox should specify that most stats are as of her second reconstruction.

Alternately, one could just add some of the stats in. I'll add a note. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The range of the main guns was increased with each reconstruction; it is not clear in the text that the range given is as of the second reconstruction.

I've added a bit to the effect that that was their maximum range. The maximum range didn't decrease when the elevation increased. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd bother with the non-notable captains, but hey, it's not my article.

I've debated that w/ myself several times. I've removed a couple of them, but I've kept others. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to capital ship. Why is pagoda mast captialized? More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Decapped. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~I actually haven't had time to copyedit this one, but~~ I did make extensive comments which may or may not be helpful at the A-class review for the sister ship Kirishima. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everything appears in order. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

This went through A-class review a long time ago, and I'm just getting to this one now. How do reviewers feel about "Malaya and the Dutch East Indies"? I can see it both ways ... it's shorter, and if you don't know where those were in 1942, you can click on the link ... but that means >90% of our readers are either going to click (not so likely) or have no idea where those were (more likely). The alternative would be "Malaya (now Malaysia) and the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia)", I guess. - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd be happy with the second. It adds modern context to them. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like modern context too. Feel free to revert, but I've added the landmarks here: "Haruna primarily remained at Truk Lagoon (Micronesia), Kure Naval Base (near Hiroshima), Sasebo Naval Base (near Nagasaki), and Lingga (present-day Malaysia)". I totally understand if someone wants to revert the addition of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the basis that unnecessary references to a particularly painful part of the war could be considered non-neutral; OTOH, the best I can tell from the links, the bases were near those two cities, and most readers will have heard of them. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Malaya" is not exactly the same as "Malaysia"—the former did not include Sarawak and Sabah. It doesn't seem like the ship did anything in Sarawak or Sabah, though. Ucucha 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, people might misunderstand. I've changed "now Malaysia" to "in present-day Malaysia", is that better? - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, the situation may be even more complex: the ship apparently covered landings at Singapore, which was part of Malaya, but is not now part of Malaysia. Perhaps the lead can just say that she covered the landings at Singapore. Ucucha 20:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only landings at Singapore were across the narrow Straits of Johor in which no Japanese ship was involved. Haruna likely supported the landings further north in Malaya, but I haven't checked that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think you'll find that the landings were mostly in Siam, a little north of Malaya, and the army then fought south to Singapore.~~ File:Pacific War - Malaya 1941-42 - Map.jpg is a map of that campaign showing the landings. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been changed to Southern Siam and Northern Malaya, since landings were occurring in both, hence why Kondo's force was designated the Malay Force. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "special service ship"? - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if I knew, I'd have an answer for you. There's a lot of these IJN designations that don't make a lot of sense. I'll ask Cla68 and see if he knows. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Because of their high speed, the two battleships could bombard the field and withdraw before being subjected to enemy air attack." Not disputing this, I just don't know what it means ... the ships weren't faster than the planes, are you saying they could quickly retreat to a place of relative safety? - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; they could get in, cause destruction, get out before the American carrier fleet had time to respond. By the time they managed to launch planes, both ships would already be halfway back to Truk, so to speak. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Centre Force" the same thing as "Force C"? If not, it should probably be "Center Force" in American English. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. I'll check a new book I found at the library tomorrow. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming from the text that the ship didn't leave Kure in July 1945 right before she was sunk; let me know if I'm wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She did not. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you'll deal with the Centre Force/Force C issue when you get the book, I have no more issues. I'm too involved to support. Thanks everyone for the solid collaborative effort. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose.

Lead is beautiful. Except: "deploying on several occasions in response to". Shouldn't it be "deployed"?
- fixed. Glad to hear the prose meets your standards. That's a huge compliment. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rest looks very well written too. But:

"Their heavy armament and armor protection (which took up 23.3% of their approximately 30,000-ton displacement) were greatly superior to that of any other Japanese capital ship afloat at the time"—should it be "those"?
- changed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes: I always complain about tiny, detail-rich images. Why is there a practice of making them small? The guidelines changed ages ago. Can't they be at least 240px, if not 250? Otherwise, they're just black-and-white blotches in water. No point unless we can make out some details, and slow-connection readers would rather not have to click on the high-res versions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 13:40, September 9, 2010

Comments

Several references need place of publication.
Can you provide an LC# or OCLC # for Reynolds, 1968?
Period needed after initial in Reynolds, 1982.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on minor prose and Manual of Style issues.

Infobox

~~Cap U and terminal period on the complete sentence in the "Notes" slot?~~

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Design and construction

"Their heavy armament and armor protection (which took up 23.3 percent of their approximately 30,000-ton displacement)" - Here and elsewhere in the article, does "ton" mean "long ton" or "short ton", or "metric ton", and would it be useful to include all three?

I've removed the number. Her displacement changed several times, but the armour percentages always remained about the same. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK, but what about the tons later in the article, as in "with no capital ship permitted to exceed 35,000 tons"?~~Finetooth (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Long Tons (also converted to tonnes). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Same sentence as above: Wikilink displacement?~~

Done. - Dank (push to talk)

~~Same sentence as above: "contributed" rather than "took up" since adding they added to rather than took from the ship's total displacement?~~

Done. - Dank (push to talk)

Armament

~~"with improvements made in flash-tightness" - What does "flash-tightness" mean? Should this be linked to something or briefly explained?~~

We came up with a link in another article, but I can't remember which one, and don't see an obvious link ... guys? - Dank (push to talk) 05:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not in any of mine, perhaps in one of Parsecboy's?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps link "flash" to Muzzle flash? I'm guessing that's what it refers to. Finetooth (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and good enough, but I had another link, I'll find it eventually. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not it. It relates, I'm fairly certain, to how a flash or fire can reach the magazine from the turret if stringent precautions aren't taken; the reason that HMS Invincible exploded during Jutland and HMS Tiger very nearly did. I had to explain it in those articles. If a link can't be found, then I'd suggest either modifying the text from my articles or deleting the reference.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the Armament section of HMS Tiger (1913), and I don't see a way to adapt the stuff in the armament section of Invincible, is there another article I can look at? - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant HMS Lion (1910), but I'm not sure that that's adaptable either as it explains what happened when flash-tightness wasn't maintained. Maybe you could say something like the turrets had added safety features, interlocks, etc. to prevent a fire in the turret from reaching the magazine. Alternatively there were severe fires in, IIRC, Seydlitz and Derfflinger during the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The main guns carried ammunition for ninety shots, and had an approximate gun-life of 250–280 shots." - Here and elsewhere in the article a number (in this case, ninety) that is bigger than nine is spelled out, but in other places numbers bigger than nine appear as digits. To some extent, whether to use digits or words depends on context, but I'm not seeing an internally consistent pattern. I think this "ninety" should be "90" and that the other numbers (such as "thirty-six Yarrow boilers" and "eleven oil-fired Kampon Boilers") should be checked for consistency. Generally, numbers bigger than nine are written as digits (although there are a fair number of exceptions such as numbers that begin a sentence).

Done. Sorry, Finetooth, I missed a bunch of these ... those neurons were sleeping, I guess. - Dank (push to talk)

Same sentence as above: The en dash doesn't scan when the sentence is read aloud; for this reason, I think "250 to 280 shots" is better than "250–280". A couple of other constructions like this appear later in the article; e.g, 5–6 rounds per minute, which would be better as "five to six rounds per minute".

Done. En-dashes are a plague, but Wikipedians really love them and I don't think they're going to let me kill off as many of them as I'd like. I got the main offenders. - Dank (push to talk)

"The sixteen 6"/50 caliber guns" - Before this instance, the guns were six-inch. Why switch to 6"? In fact, why repeat that they were 50-caliber and that there were 16 of them since the preceding sentence specifies all this? Suggestion: "The six-inch guns could fire five to six rounds per minute, with a barrel life of 500 rounds." The "eight 5"/40 caliber guns" could become "these 40-caliber guns" to avoid repetition and the 5" problem.

Good point. not sure why we didn't catch that in an earlier copyedit, the redundancy seems so obvious looking at it now. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1915–1926 Battlecruiser

~~"a breech explosion" - Link "breech" to Breech-loading weapon?~~

Done. - Dank (push to talk)

~~"allowed to be upgraded with improved torpedo bulges" - Should this be "anti-torpedo bulges" and linked to anti-torpedo bulge?~~

Done. - Dank (push to talk)

1933–1941: Fast Battleship

~~Lowercase "battleship" in the head?~~

Done. - Dank (push to talk)

Dern it, now it's done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Her stern was lengthened by 26 feet" - Metric conversion?~~

References and Bibliography

Each ampersand that is not part of a formal name should be changed to "and".

Ok. done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the ones in citations 3, 5, and 7 OK? Finetooth (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth is one of Wikipedia's better copyeditors, guys, we're honored :) Finetooth, here's my usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just doing my job. I've struck the ones that are done to make it easier to see the others. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Although they are sourced, "scrapped by 1948" in the info box and "The remnants of Haruna were raised from the sea floor in 1946 and broken up over the next two years." are questionable. Two years? It might be a mistake. I think it would be 2 months. Haruna related ja pages say she was struck from the Navy list on Nov.20, 1945 and the scrapping started at the Harima Kure Dock, the former Kure Naval Arsenal on May 2, 1946 and ended on July 4, 1946. See [9] (G translation) and [10] (G translation). Which information is correct? BTW, Haruna's flag pole removed from the ship at the 1933 upgrade is still kept at a shrine in Amagasaki. See [11] and [12]. Oda Mari (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure. If subsequent scrapping and breaking up occurred at locations other than Kure over the next two years I could see it taking that long. I'll investigate it further. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jentshura says BU 1946 at Harima.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. We'll go with that. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query Nice read, looks well balanced, I made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.

unless otherwise noted, all statistics are post-reconstruction - which reconstruction, I think there were two. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there were. My mistake. I've fixed this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks happy to count as a support, ~~though there is an outstanding issue about the landings in Siam/Northern Malaya which I've commented on some way above~~. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've dealt with that issue as well. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:29, 13 September 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.