Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Yamashiro/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 GrahamColm 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Japanese battleship Yamashiro[edit]

Japanese battleship Yamashiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dank, Sturmvogel 66

The big battleship-on-battleship fights are the images that seem to stick in peoples' minds ... that's kind of the point of all that weaponry and armor ... but because battleships cost so much, navies have usually been very reluctant to risk them. In 1944, with its back to the wall, the Imperial Japanese Navy did risk it all ... with dramatic results, in the case of Yamashiro. See for yourself. This FAC completes the Fusō-class battleship trilogy. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WikiCup nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Are Naval Institute and Naval Institute Press the same entity?
  • Parshall & Tully: should specify DC. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support [Caveat: This reviewer is a WikiCup contestant]

  • Length overall, beam, standard load dispacment, and maximum speed as-built are different in the infobox and in the design section.
    • Good catches.
  • " the ship was equipped to operate three floatplanes, although no hangar was provided." -- So where then were the planes stored?
  • "but after two to four torpedo hits and two more near the starboard engine room," -- torpedoes? The previous graph says there was a ceasefire order on both sides.
    • Agreed, I liked my wording better, a reviewer asked for that change in a previous FAC, I'll change it. - Dank (push to talk)
  • There's some kind of access issue with an external link.
    • It was working recently, let's see if it comes back. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest but don't require alt text. Other than that, the images appear to be properly licensed, I see no problems with article stability and neutrality, and refs all look good. Will await responses. —Ed!(talk) 00:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great. Now I'm just waiting to see about the link and if it comes back. Since it's an external link and not a ref, I'd take it out, but that's up to you guys. —Ed!(talk) 21:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dana boomer (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • Description - is the "deep load" term used in the second paragraph the same as the "full load" term used and linked in the first paragraph?
  • Armament, "the elevation of the main guns was increased to +43 degrees," Maybe "maximum elevation"? I'm assuming they didn't just stay locked it at 43 degrees all the time.
  • Armament, "from 27,800 to 35,450 yards (25,400 to 32,420 m)." All of the other conversions have meters first.
  • Armament, "The configuration of the AA guns varied significantly". Varied significantly between what? Between ships? Over time?
  • Armor, "The ship's waterline armor belt was 305 to 229 millimeters (12 to 9 in) thick;" Why largest to smallest? In the next sentence, it's smallest to largest - best to keep consistent.
  • Armor, "while the casemates of the 152 mm guns were protected by 152 mm armor plates." The plating was exactly the same thickness as the size of the guns? Was this a coincidence or planned for some reason?
  • Construction and service - are all of the captains red linked in this section notable enough to have articles at some point?
  • Is there any information on the ship after it sank? Was there any attempt to raise it? How deep is the water it's in? Is it a dive site? A memorial (with over 1,600 sailors dead)? I see there are coordinates for the wreck in the External links section, so we know where it is...
    • Various people have claimed to have discovered the wreck, and , but nothing's been confirmed in the dozen years since, so I've deleted the coordinates as should have happened earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, looks quite good. Once the above are addressed, I will be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review; always good to have someone from outside the project to check things over for unclear jargon, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks great, and thanks for the quick responses. Changed to support, above. Dana boomer (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Japanese_battleship_Yamashiro/archive1&oldid=1138464478"