Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi/archive1


 * 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 Ucucha 19:44, 4 February 2012.

Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC) and Cla68

This is the third article on Japanese aircraft carriers that I've written with Cla68. This ship was originally designed as a battlecruiser, but was converted into an aircraft carrier during the mid-1920s after the Washington Naval Treaty limited new capital ship construction in 1922. The ship participated in several iterations of Japan's war with China during the 1930s and was very active in the first part of the Pacific War. She was one of the carriers that conducted the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 and supported many of the Japanese attacks on Allied forces and territories through June 1942 when she was sunk during the Battle of Midway. The article received a very thorough MilHist A-class review last October and we're hopeful that not much work remains to pass this FAC. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Good to see you back at FAC, Cla68.
 * I'm confused by the second paragraph of Propulsion.
 * Rewritten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, so far so good down to where I stopped in the A-class review, Reconstruction. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Support on prose/detail/structure at this stage
 * Gardiner and Grey or Gray?
 * Why not include both authors for Hata citations?
 * FN 37: which Prange?
 * FN 41: punctuation
 * Be consistent how citations with multiple non-consecutive pages or ranges are handled, and whether ranges are abbreviated or not
 * FN 44: missing a dash
 * Izawa Yasuho or Yasuho Izawa?
 * Are "Naval Institute Press" and "United States Naval Institute" the same thing?
 * Yes, but the name changed over the decades. They are correct as given in the book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All done except for FN 37.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No DAB links or EL probs according to the toolbox checkers.
 * Having reviewed and copyedited this at its MilHist ACR, I've gone right through the article and CE'd again as a fair few edits have been made since.
 * No image checks as yet and, although refs look reliable, no spotchecks either -- will do so as/when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Went through each image and licensing looks reasonable to me, however I wouldn't mind an expert double-checking one or two that are scanned from American books but assert Japanese PD without author details, e.g. File:Akagi AA gun position.jpg and File:Akagi Pearl Harbor Second Wave Prep.jpg.
 * Checking over the online sources, there's not much to spotcheck in any case. Knowing the nominators as I do, I'm prepared to AGF on the info presented. However I'm a bit dubious about the Tully website. I can see it's purported to be by someone who's published at least one book, but that doesn't necessarily tell me that the site itself is wholly reliable... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I understand what your qualms are, Ian, but Tully's written or co-written two books on battles of the Pacific War and he wrote the record of movement that we cite here. It meets all the requirements of a highly reliable source as far as I see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Read it for clarity and any obvious RW technical issues. Nice article. Two notes, matters of opinion rather than issues, no need to change on my account. In the lead and the last paragraph, is "scuttle" the right word to use for sinking by other ships? The use of "IJN" extensively throughout the article to refer to the Japanese navy for me kept stopping the flow of the reading. Nice article. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The most common use of scuttle is for a ship to sink itself, but it is also appropriate when another ship of the same nationality/side sinks it to prevent capture, etc. I'll look again at the usage of IJN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly common in military literature to spell-out the formal title of an organization (Imperial Japanese Navy), then use an acronym (IJN) to refer to it for the rest of the article, book, or essay. I understand that in most other literature, however, using acronyms that way is not necessarily pleasing to the eye.  I'm fine with trying to use other words, such as "the Japanese navy", or something like that if you feel it would read better. Cla68 (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, and I don't have much to add. It is very well-written and very interesting. I appreciate the opportunity to read it. I made a few minor changes as I read. My only real beef would be the application of WP:ORDINAL, especially in the World War II section. In the places in the narrative where you are writing "x of these aircraft, x of these other aircraft" and so on, I recommend you always express the numbers as numerals. WP:ORDINAL refers to comparative quantities, but I think it applies here since you are comparing numbers of different kinds of planes. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Image review: all images used are in the public domain.
 * Thank you for taking the time to read the article, make some improvements, give a recommendation, and provide some suggestions for improvement. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Based on general quality of the article; not review of all FA criteria. North8000 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support on all criteria except 3, which is covered above. 1a- made some of my own tweaks, but am a fan of it overall. 1b- as far as I can tell (speaking as a Milhist/ship editor), the article does not omit any major facts or events. 1c- I'm sure there's more out there on the Battle of Midway,at least, but P&T's Shattered Sword is the definitive reference on that battle, and the rest fulfills the "representative survey of the relevant literature" requirement. 1d- no POV is jumping out at me. 1e- is stable. 2- has a lead, is sectioned, has consistent citations. 4- ~6,000 words is a tad longer than average (from what I've seen) but is far from atypical. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.