Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Kawachi

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Japanese battleship Kawachi

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Japanese battleship Kawachi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The short-lived Kawachi fell victim to a magazine explosion only six years after she was completed in 1912. In between these dates, her only significant activity was bombarding German defenses during the Siege of Tsingtao during World War I. I've overhauled this article significantly since it was promoted to GA in 2013 and would like reviewers to look for the usual things in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

• given they were the first dreadnoughts, suggest stating that Aki was a semi-dreadnought
• lk=in for knots at first mention in the body
• "Eight 40-caliber quick-firing (QF) 4.7-inch (119 mm) 41st Year Type guns.,"
• suggest putting the armour range for the barbettes and conning tower in the infobox
• the deck armour measurements don't match (rounding?)

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Images

• All three are licensed correctly (though you could update the PD-old-70 tag on File:Kawachi-classDrawing.jpg to PD-old-90).
  • Quibble, quibble! Hey, I've sent you a couple of emails recently, have you received them?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• All sources are formatted uniformly, though isn't Ahlberg credited as an author of CombinedFleet?
  • No, see [1]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Sources used are reliable and high quality. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

• under the 1907 Warship Supplement Program after the Russo-Japanese War as Japan's first dreadnoughts Link for the 1907 Warship Supplement Program? Pipe Japan to the Empire of Japan. Also add the years of the war to make the reader clear that the war occurred three/two years ago.
• Their design was based on the semi-dreadnought Aki with a uniform 12-inch (305 mm) main battery This is really odd to me, why is there a "was" when the person or object are plurals? I'd say "Their design were" instead of "Their design was" but correct me if I am wrong.
  • Design is almost always singular.

• Yes I know but that the design was based on multiple ships got me in confusion. I thought because of the design was from multiple ships, it should be plural due it came from multiple ships. But never mind that. Cheers.

• Her crew numbered 999 officers and enlisted men as completed During peace times or wartime?
  • That's all I know
• propeller, using steam from 16 Miyabara water-tube boilers No link for Miyabara?
  • Nope.
• and a dozen 40-caliber QF 3-inch (76 mm) 41st Year Type guns A dozen? Doesn't the source say that?
  • What do you mean? I didn't want to spell out twelve.

• I forgot at that moment that a "dozen" also means twelve like a dozen of eggs. Cheers.

• She was assigned to the First Squadron of the First Fleet on 15 August 1915 and began 1915 isn't necessary.
• inch casemate guns for three-inch anti-aircraft guns Do we know what kind of guns?
  • Probably the same type of gun on a high-angle mount, but not specified.
• Magazine is overlinked.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• • Thanks for looking this over so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

• Why the cite in the lead?
  • Was trying to stretch the size of the lede by explaining her name.
• "although cost considerations prevented all the guns from having the same barrel length" a couple of queries spring to mind: 1. Which was cheaper?2. How much was saved? 3. Why were all the guns not the cheaper version then? In what way(s) did this effect their performances?
  • That discussion is going to be worth a paragraph or more in the class article where the answers to your questions will eventually be found, so best to elide right past it in the ship articles.
• "¥11,130,000" Any idea what this was or is in "real" money?
  • Nope.
• Is it appropriate to use the term "private ship" for a non-RN vessel?
  • I don't see why not as it exactly describes what happened. Nobody else, AFAIK, used the term, but it's just too handy to ignore.
• "She was assigned to the First Squadron of the First Fleet on 15 August and began a lengthy refit on 1 December 1916" It seems strange to have events over 16 months apart casually mixed in a single sentence.
  • I have no details on what the ship did during that time. Happy to rephrase if you've got suggestions.

Suggest "She was assigned to the First Squadron of the First Fleet on 15 August. On 1 December 1916 she began a lengthy refit."

• "that were successfully adopted by the navy" What does "successfully" add to this?
  • Nothing exploded for the next 20+ years, but that's not really relevant for this article, so deleted.
• "would delay the construction of one battlecruiser by over a year" Why/how?
  • Spend money salvaging and rebuilding the ship or spend it on the newer battlecruiser. Happy to take suggestions on how to clarify that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "but decided not to as the diversion of resources would have delayed the construction of one battlecruiser by over a year."? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

See if my changes are satisfactory and thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments on two points; the rest are fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Supporting - I have no idea how you maintain both quality and quantity; impressive. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

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.