Talk:Ibuki-class armored cruiser/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 06:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I will be performing a review of this nomination within the next 48 hours.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  06:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM (Criteria)

Starting comments:

1. Well written:
 * a. prose/copyright: Pictogram voting delete.svg
 * "Four sets of Curtis turbines were ordered from the Fore River Shipbuilding Co., two each for Ibuki and the battleship JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Aki, plus a manufacturing license." - This is awkwardly worked. I assume that it's a license to build the turbines themselves, but are the manufacturing license from Curtis or Fore River?
 * It's not clear, my source doesn't say who the contract for license was with, just that it was signed a month after the contract for the turbines.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "The ships carried a maximum of 2,000 long tons (2,000 t) of coal and an additional 215 long tons (218 t) of fuel oil although their endurance is unknown." - what does endurance mean?
 * How long and how far the ship could steam. I can use range here if that's more immediately obvious.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * b. MoS compliance: Pictogram resolved.svg

2. Accurate and verifiable: 
 * a. provides references:
 * b. proper citation use:
 * c. no original research:

3. Broad in coverage: 
 * a. covers main aspects:
 * b. focused/on topic:

4. Neutral: 

5. Stable: 

6. Image use:
 * a. license/tagging correct: Pictogram voting delete.svg
 * The main image is missing a source, so I went looking for one. What I found was the same image in color at this Chinese website. I'm pretty sure that the image is just under a sepia filter, and therefore the claim that's an old postcard is fake. That would mean that the image has to go. Before I nuke it from orbit on Commons though, I wanted to let you know about the situation.
 * I don't know about the actual source, but the original is certainly not in color&mdash;color photos were only rarely taken at that time. That's likely a colored image (color added later). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit-conflict) Just a drive-by comment: the source doesn't so much matter, since the photo was taken before 1946. The photo is automatically PD in Japan due to its age, and was PD when the URAA went into effect in 1996, so it's PD in the US as well. It's perfectly fine to keep. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I found an even larger version here, and while it says 1912, it certainly doesn't look like it was colored in later, and it seems quite large for such an old photo (and certainly larger than the postcard). What exactly happened to the ship after it was scrapped?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um. It was scrapped. Scrapping means being being broken up into pieces. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but I am having a hard time rectifying that with the photo that I linked to.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The photo on the forum is irrelevant. It was posted 3 years after the one here was uploaded, and is a tighter cropping of the photo. And more importantly, the photo is irrefutably PD in both the country of origin (since it was taken before 1946) and in the US (since it was PD on 1 January 1996). The source doesn't matter, because there is no possible way for this photo to be copyrighted anywhere. Heck, we can upload the forum photo here if someone cared to do it, since it's slightly larger and has been colored. Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You really don't need to explain copyright to me, I'm pretty sure I know as much, if not more, than you do on the matter. Actually I think that you're missing my concern here entirely. If the photo was actually taken in the 1920s than no, there's no problem. My concern is that I'm not sure if that is the case. Yes, the source (which I don't have access to) says that the ship was scrapped, which would mean that it's not still around today to be photographed. However the photo that I linked to doesn't look like it came from the 1920s. My concern is that it was partially decommissioned and then left anchored off the coast for a while, and then was photographed later. Yes, I know that this is unlikely, especially since it looks like there is still a weapon and sailors on the ship, but because I found the color version I'm concerned about that. I'd like for someone who actually has the Preston source tell me that my scenario is impossible.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Preston says Ibuki was scrapped at Kobe, 1923–25, Kurama at Kobe 1924–25. Conway's Fighting Ships says Ibuki by 9.12.24 and Kurama 1924–25, so neither ship hung around a while before being scrapped. The website's year as 1912 seems a bit hard to believe as the photo doesn't seem to have been colorized, although Lengerer, et al, dates it to 1913, unfortunately without giving a source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If Lengerer has the same image, you should add Lengerer as the source and 1913 as the date on the description page. If the image is very close (same picture but without the text, for example), just upload Lengerer's version over the current one. In the mean time, there are also items in section 1a that need your attention. I'll check in in a few hours; it's 3:30 AM where I am and I need to go to sleep.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sven, I wasn't missing your concern. The ship didn't exist after 1925, so there is no possible way for the photo to have been taken and still be under copyright. The photo from the forum clearly has been colorized and retouched - there are dozens of them throughout the pages of that forum thread, see for instance here, there are several colorized and heavily retouched photos of Japanese warships. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * While uploading the color picture is tempting, I'm going to resist because the postcard version at least gives me a country of publication. Who knows where the other one might have been published.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * b. relevant/properly captioned: Pictogram resolved.svg

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:
 * a. images that should have alt texts have them: Pictogram voting delete.svg
 * Would you please give the diagram an alt text?
 * Alt text is not required for GA. AFAIK the caption is readable by vision-impaired readers, so how would alt text improve upon the caption? I'll get to the rest of these comments tomorrow. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is why I have it under the header "Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer". You don't have to do it, I've approved GANs where everything else was done but the person never did the alt texts. Because I had to fix the caption anyways, I put them in myself.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; I'd missed the optional bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * b. general catch all and aesthetics: Pictogram resolved.svg

Comments after the initial review: Unsurprisingly, this is very well and getting this to GA should take no more than ten minutes of tweaking.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  18:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in, but while looking at the image situation, I noticed that the WNT is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body - the connection between the Treaty and the ships' disposal should be mentioned in the main text with a citation. Parsecboy (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that it was covered by "She was refit at Kure in 1918, disarmed in 1922, and stricken from the Navy List the following year and scrapped in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty." (end of the second paragraph of the "Construction and service" section). Did I miss something or did you?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Promoted All of my concerns have been addressed. This is ready.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)