Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Hyūga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 06:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Built during World War I, Hyuga didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Hyuga's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and remnants of AmEng in preparation for a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: G'day, Sturm, I started taking a look at this one, but then my fever got worse and I realised I probably shouldn't be reading something this technical in my current condition. Anyway, here are some observations from my flu addled brain. Apologies if some of it is wrong, I will try to come back when I feel a bit better: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found a couple of examples of US English: "meters", "armor" and "draft"
  • inconsistent: "laid down...on 6 May 1915" (body) v. "Laid down: 16 May 1915" (infobox)
  • the infobox mentions 27 July 1945 as the date the ship ran aground, but I couldn't locate that in the body?
  • the length between perpendiculars doesn't seem to be in the body, so is uncited in the infobox
  • the standard load displacement only seems to be in the infobox
  • the infobox lists the ship's speed as 23 knots, but the body says 24 knots?
  • the infobox lists a complement of 1,198, but the body mentions 1,360 and 1,376?
  • the infobox lists 16 x 14 cm guns, but the body says twenty
  • inconsistent: "length to 215.8 metres (708 ft 0 in)" v. "Length: 216 m (708 ft 8 in)"

Comments Only a couple of minor comments:

Support Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • Rupert has picked up most of the technical things that came to my notice
  • were the secondary guns in single mounts? It says so in the infobox, but not in the body
    • Good catch.
  • suggest "According to the historian Mark Stille"
    • Howzabout "naval historian" instead?
  • the first reconstruction speed is 24.5 kn in the body, but 25 kn in the infobox
    • Good catch.
  • link Siberian Intervention and Second Sino-Japanese War in the body
    • Unless it's a really long article, I only link once per article.
  • technically you should probably spell out IJN at first mention in the body
    • Why? It's spelled out in the lede and that should suffice.
  • if there were a dozen of each aircraft, that doesn't add up to 22?
    • Correct, clarified that some of them were reserve aircraft, which may have been stowed partially dissassembled. Annoyingly, my sources aren't very clear on this.
  • once Matsuda is mentioned as being a Rear Admiral, you can drop the rank
    • Indeed.
  • Tantalus should probably be HMS, to be consistent with the USS used with the American ships
    • Good idea.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by lingzhi

[edit]

Lengerer 2009 in notes but not refs. Ditto Parshall & Tully. Whitley in refs but not notes. otherwise well done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: I've updated the publishing history to show that they were first published in 1974 thanks to a Japanese Wikipedian who looked them up for us. So we should be good now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did the earlier publication include a copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. Why wouldn't it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Worldcat entry for the book if that helps any: [1] --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it did, we've still got an issue with that URAA tag per point one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This just keeps on getting better and better! Although I think that you mean bullet point 2. I'll ask the helpful Japanese Wikipedian to check.
I'd make the argument, though, that any copyright statement applies only to the text, as the photos were out of copyright by that date and asserting that they were is fraudulent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: As it's going to take a while to determine the true copyright status of these photos, I've replaced them so this review can be closed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2018 (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.