Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Mutsu

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese battleship Mutsu edit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Mutsu had a surprisingly uneventful history. She was a minor cause célèbre during the negotiations for the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 as the Japanese lied about having claimed to complete her before the start of the conference, otherwise would have had to scrap the brand new ship. Even so a compromise was reached where Japan was allowed to retain her, while sacrificing one of her earliest dreadnoughts and the UK and US were allowed to build/finish some 16-inch-armed dreadnoughts. The ship was generally kept in home waters during the Pacific War. Her magazines exploded in early 1943 for an unknown reason and her wreck was salvaged after the war.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, looks quite good, but I only took a quick look:

"totalled" --> shouldn't this be "totaled" if it it is US spelling?
- To tell the truth, I always get mixed up on doubling the "l" or not, but my dictionary agrees with you.
punctuation: "superstructure. six-meter";
"rumours" --> "rumors" (US spelling);
"Parshall & Tully" appears in the Footnotes seciton, but not in the Bibliography;
in the Bibliography, capitalisation: "Scraps of Paper: The Disarmament Treaties between the World Wars" --> ""Scraps of Paper: The Disarmament Treaties Between the World Wars"?
as above, "Mutsu – An Exploration of the Circumstances Surrounding her Loss" --> "Mutsu – An Exploration of the Circumstances Surrounding Her Loss"?
isbn or oclc for the Hyde work?
"File:Fusō-class battleship.jpg": probably needs a US licence. I think PD-US-1996 would probably work;
"File:Mutsu20.jpg": is missing date and source information on hte description page; it probably also needs a US licence;
"File:Japanese battleship Mutsu.jpg": US licence and link (if available) to the archive. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching all these little niggles. Added US licenses for all the pics. Sources are not available, although exceedingly unlikely to be non-Japanese as she never made a port visit outside Japan that I'm aware of.
  - No worries, I had a look too, but couldn't find anything unfortunately. I'm happy that its PD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm very fortunate that the Japanese PD law is so broad, makes just about everything I can find PD. I wish other nations would follow suit!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Infobox
- Add o/a
- Shouldn't the armament have english units?
  - The IJN went metric in 1917.
    - I meant a conversion in parens, like Yamato-class battleship.
- The barbettes and turret numbers don't match the prose. Kirk (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good catch.

A 'mixture of coal and oil' probably should describe the mixture - is that oil sprayed on coal?
- Probably, but my sources don't specify. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What does it literally say in the sources? I'm pretty sure they meant the low-quality coal sprayed with diesel option. Kirk (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good to me! Minor comments:

"four Gihon geared steam turbines" - I wasn't quite sure whether these were "Gihon-geared steam turbines" or "geared Gihon steam turbines" (i.e. what the Gihon adjective was applying to)
- Gihon was the manufacturer. I'm not sure how to fix this. Geared and steam aren't a compound adjective so a hyphen is out.
" the gun's maximum range from " - the rest of the paragraph would have this as "guns'"
- Good catch.
"Mutsu had an additional boom added" - worth linking boom?
- Sure, more links is good.
"Mutsu, named for Mutsu Province, and for the Meiji Emperor's personal name, Mutsuhito" - the lead only mentions the first of these, btw.
- True, my early research didn't discover the other reason for the name. Somebody pointed it out to me later so I'm not sure that it was a cause for the name rather than happy coincidence.
"she sortied for the Bonin Islands," - I'd have gone for "sortied to the Bonin Islands" Hchc2009 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be one of those things relating to how we use collective nouns. "For" is fine for a collective destination like an island group, but "to" is better for a specific place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support
- No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
- External links check out [2] (no action req'd).
- Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
  - "Whitley, p. 200" (Multiple references contain the same content)
  - "w0" (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Images are all either PD / licensed and seem appropriate as far as I can see.
- The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
- A few duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
  - crane (see "...and a collapsible crane was installed in a portside sponson the following year...)
    - Crane and boom both link back to crane (mechanical)
  - light cruiser (see "... the light cruiser Sendai, nine destroyers and four auxiliary ships...")
  - Saipan (see "...were sent to Saipan in the Mariana Islands where most were killed...")
  - shrapnel shells (see "...incendiary shrapnel shells, which had caused a fire at the Sagami arsenal several years earlier..."
  - brigade (see "...long section running from the bridge structure forward to the vicinity of No. 1 turret...")
- Prose a little repetitive here: "...immediate suspicion focused on the Type 3 anti-aircraft shell as it had been suspected of causing a fire before the war ...", specifically "suspicion" and "suspected" in the same sentence. Consider something like: " ...immediate suspicion focused on the Type 3 anti-aircraft shell as it had been believed to have caused a fire before the war..." (suggestion only - minor nitpick really).
- Otherwise very good. Anotherclown (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - All done, thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Belatedly adding my support. For some reason I thought I'd already done this. Anotherclown (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2013 (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.