Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō/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 SandyGeorgia 00:24, 17 January 2011.

Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō

 * Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC) and Sturmvogel 66

We are nominating this article on the first aircraft carrier in the Imperial Japanese Navy for featured article because it has passed an A-class review from MILHIST and appears to be ready for FA consideration. Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of quick comments: Dave (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the hat note, "This page refers to the Japanese aircraft carrier. " is completely redundant with the title.
 * Indeed it is, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, is there a reason why this page isn't titled "Hōshō (aircraft carrier)" or similar? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the title, just that this isn't they way I'm used to seeing articles like this disambiguated.
 * See Naming conventions (ships)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, got it. That makes more sense now. Dave (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Images The text in File:Aircraft_carrier_silhouettes_(Warships_To-day,_1936).jpg could do with being a bit bigger or else the text could be moved to the caption, otherwise WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Enlarged to 400px.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 'FA Criterion 3]] met Fasach Nua (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment: Very interesting read I have a couple of concerns with the prose; Gnangarra 12:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Armament section; This heavy gun armament was provided in case she was surprised by enemy cruisers and forced to give battle, but her large and vulnerable flight deck, hangars, and other features made her more of a target in any surface action than a fighting warship. Carrier doctrine was still evolving at this time and the impracticability of carriers engaging in gun duels had not yet been realized. has a few issues would suggest something like Her large vulnerable flight deck and other features made her more of a target in surface actions. A heavy gun armament was provided for Hōshō in case she was forced to give battle but as carrier doctrine was just evolving at this time the impracticability of carriers engaging in gun duels had not yet been realized.
 * Shanghai and Fourth Fleet incidents section Hōshō, along with Kaga and assigned to the First Carrier Division, was sent to China during the Shanghai Incident that began in January 1932 think should be something like Hōshō, along with Kaga and were assigned to the First Carrier Division which was sent to China during the Shanghai Incident that began in January 1932
 * Done. Thank you for the feedback. Cla68 (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, sorry fir the delay in response I finally got 15 minutes to re-read, you have my support well done Gnangarra 02:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:-
 * Footnotes 14 and 15 are not cited
 * Ref 17 needs "pp." not "p."
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I have no major issues with the prose, however the navbox is a bit... overpowering. Perhaps set the box to collapse by default? --Admrboltz (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually a bit small for most ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. I have three quibbles: The first is the article's prose, which I am making an effort to improve through copyediting and a review on the talk page. The second is the positioning of the silhouette comparison image, which is currently in the Notes section. This is a very informative image; I don't understand why it's placed down there. The third is that, considering how much emphasis is given to the individual features and measurements of the ship, a diagram of the locations of the major structures and weapons would be very helpful. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Where would you suggest the image be placed? I don't find it all that useful, but since I already know that she's a small carrier, I'm a bit biased. Sorry, my graphics skills are too limited to create a diagram illustrating everything you'd like and the existing material is generally under copyright and would yield derivative works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if no one can create a diagram, I would think the most logical place for the comparison image would be somewhere in the Design and description section, which makes several comparisons between ships anyway. File:Hosho Yokosuka.jpg doesn't seem to convey anything special, so why not swap that one out? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! I hope you agree that the image is better placed there. This just leaves the ongoing prose review on the talk page, after which I'll be happy to support. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. After a productive prose review, I am satisfied with the readability of this article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support To what extent was she engaged during the Battle of Kure? Did she fight back and splash any planes? Or was she just a sitting duck. Since it was her last major engagement, her participation in it should be expanded a bit.XavierGreen (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't much information on what the ship did during that attack, but I added explanatory text about it. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, ive changed to support.XavierGreen (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1a and 1c. I read up to "Service" and found lots of issues. Nothing major with the writing, but needs a thorough copyedit by an independent party to smooth out wordiness, clunkiness, consistency problems, and so on. There are also issues with the sources. Out of the three checks I did, two were problematic. Maybe the wrong page numbers were given or someone mis-read the source? My confidence with the accuracy of sourcing is not high, at the moment. I don't mean to discourage you—it's good—but not at FA quality yet.
 * "Hōshō was modified several times during her career, including changes to her flight deck, superstructure, and armament." The parts of this sentence don't match up—the "including" clause would go with "modifications" but not "was modified".
 * This reads fine to me. I don't understand your objection.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the second para of the lead, why does Sino–Japanese War link to a redirect?
 * Fixed.
 * MoS: Looks like you had a hyphen in there, rather than an en dash. Check for other violations of WP:DASH.
 * Should be a hyphen, not an en dash: An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones) or an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "During World War II Hōshō participated in the Battle of Midway in June 1942 in which her aircraft flew anti-submarine patrols and aerial reconnaissance missions." Lots of prepositional phrases make rough reading. Is the first one really necessary when you later get more specific, twice?
 * Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a random source check to ref 2. I reviewed Milanovich and Evans, and both mention an "8-8" program. So, I'm not sure where you got "eight-six" but the sources do not support it.
 * Hosho was authorized as part of the 8-6 program, see Milanovich, p. 10, but the basic concept was revised from a seaplane carrier to an aircraft carrier as part of the 8-8 program. You'll see a reference to the 8-6 program in the last paragraph of p. 180 of Evans.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did a second source check to ref 29 (aircraft elevators, although I wonder why you changed from "lifts"?) and that checks out.
 * Lifts is Brit English.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jargon: funnels. No idea.
 * Linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "General characteristics" and "Propulsion" both begin with "Hōshō was completed with..." Can we introduce a little more variety?
 * Sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wordy: "She carried 2,700 long tons (2,743 t) of fuel oil and 940 long tons (955 t) of coal, an extraordinary amount of fuel for such a small ship" The clause to be reduced to "extraordinary for such a small ship" and retain its meaning.
 * Done.
 * Misplaced modifying phrase: "To reduce the rolling of the ship and make it more stable for aircraft operations, Hōshō was fitted"
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Spot the redundant prepositional phrase: "but eventually the system proved its worth as the technicians gained experience with the system"
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Overlinked in places. For example, "starboard" arguably needs one link, but not more. Other terms are linked multiple times.
 * Especially aircraft types. I think that I've caught most of these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source problem: I don't see anything in Milanovich that supports "Hōshō was relatively unusual in that she had two hangars."
 * The arrangement of the hangars was quite different to that adopted for later carriers and would not be repeated., p. 13. Footnote corrected.
 * Wordy: "When she was first commissioned she had an air group that consisted of nine Mitsubishi 1MF (Type 10) fighters" Why not just "She was first commissioned with an air group of nine Mitsubishi 1MF (Type 10) fighters"?
 * Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The first landings were made by British pilots employed by the Japanese, but they were quickly replaced" As written, the landings were replaced, not the pilots.
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Stopped reading here. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  05:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose on consistency and MoS issues, with some examples of issues:
 * I agree with the earlier commenter that the navbox should be collapsed by default
 * No ships navbox is collapsed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that based on convention or a ship-specific MoS? In either case, I would suggest given the size of the infobox navbox collapsing might be a good option here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that in the style guidelines? I don't keep up with endsection stuff.  WP:NAVBOX is an essay.  WP:INFOBOX is a wiki-project ... and btw, that page has more links in their uncollapsed navboxes than this article does. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sturm, Nikki might be happier if the navbox were more compact. Nikki, MILHIST format issues often involve hundreds of editors, so I don't know how much fiddling we can do during one FAC. Again, I don't know, not my area of expertise. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines doesn't specify uncollapsed infoboxes, but, again, I've never seen a collapsed infobox on a ship article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't use contractions
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Use a consistent format for footnotes and for reference entries where there are multiple authors or editors
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Why "Parshall and Tully" but only "Evans" in Footnotes? First name or last name first for second author/editor? "and" or a comma before third author/editor? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see what you're objecting to. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Use a consistent format for edited or translated texts
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not done. Compare for example Gardiner and Goldstein. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that these are all fixed now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "forward" mean in reference to Prange? Do you mean he wrote the foreword?
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in including or not including the original author of translated texts
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are Peattice and Peattie the same person, or are you missing a reference entry?
 * Fixed.
 * Be consistent in capitalizing or not when using a web site as a publisher
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Use a consistent format for dates
 * I'm not seeing any differing formats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am - you're using both day month year and month day, year. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell there's only DMY used in the article. If you're seeing different, please point it out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * United States Naval Institute or Naval Institute Press? New York or New York, New York?
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter is, but the former is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The former is how the books reference the publisher; likely the publisher changed its name over time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "14 cm guns" - grammar and conversion
 * Be more consistent in the reference format used in Notes
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3rd Fleet or Third Fleet?
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is "conning"? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I may be able to help with some of this, but I only work with the main text. I searched the main text for apostrophes and found no contractions.  What's the grammar problem with "14 cm guns"?  I'd also like to know when it's okay to alternate "3rd" and "Third" (Fleet, Battalion, etc.) and when to be consistent. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Doesn't" appears in Notes. Since "14 cm" is here being used to describe the guns, I believe it should be "14-cm guns" (plus the conversion). As for 3rd/Third, I would argue for consistency in all cases unless there's a good reason not to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A hyphen is not used when the measurement is not spelled out. See WP:HYPHEN. The size is converted in the infobox and recent practice has been not to convert the size when it's part of the gun's name because people can click on the link if they want more info about the gun's size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Support per standard disclaimer. I've just reviewed the comments here and on the talk page, responded to some of them, and completed another copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments from someone who knows very little about ships; please do set me straight if I've got something wrong.

Support Concerns addressed. wacky wace  17:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Lede
 * "Hōshō was scrapped in Japan beginning in 1946." This is very open-ended and leaves the story of the ship incomplete; it could imply the scrapping of the ship is still ongoing now.
 * Clarified.
 * The sentence has not changed... wacky  wace  19:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede is a brief summary of the entire article. The dates of scrapping are covered in the very last sentence: She was scrapped in Osaka from 2 September 1946 to 1 May 1947 by the Kyôwa Shipbuilding Company.

Design and description
 * "The plan was revised after reports were received from Japanese observers with the Royal Navy in Europe." What did these reports entail?
 * Use of Campania during the war revealed that she was not entirely satisfactory, especially because she could not land her aircraft on board.
 * "Hōshō's designed speed was reduced to 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph), based on British experiences during World War I." What were the experiences, and why did they mean the speed was limited?
 * I believe that they didn't need the excess speed.
 * "The ship was almost completely unarmored." Was there a reason for this?
 * She was designed to a strict tonnage limit.
 * "A pair of 40-caliber 8 cm/40 3rd Year Type guns on disappearing mounts provided Hōshō's only anti-aircraft defense." Only seems to imply the vessel was not well defended against aircraft attacks; why was this?
 * Very few navies placed much importance on AA defense during this period.

Service
 * "Her aircraft elevators were enlarged in 1939: the forward elevator to 12.8 by 8.5 meters (42 by 28 ft) and the rear elevator to 13.7 by 7 meters (45 by 23 ft)." Why?
 * Presumably to handle larger aircraft. Sources don't specify why, only that it was done.
 * Who made the August 1939 evaluation?
 * Unspecified, but presumably the Navy.
 * "among the most dramatic of the war in the Pacific." Who made this remark?
 * Either Parshall and Tully or Wilmott or both.

After the war wacky wace  16:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The section heading: since Hōshō was involved in multiple wars, I think a more appropriate heading would be "After World War II", or something similar.
 * Given that her participation is covered chronologically, I don't think that this is an issue. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, as I think significant progress has been made. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  05:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Layperson confusion. The lead says: but in looking for supporting text in the article, I find: What is the difference between the two, and was the Hosho the first in Japan or the first in the world? I'm not getting the distinction with the Argus. Can the lead be clarified to first in Japan or first in the world? Or if it was the first in the world, can the distinction with other aircraft carriers be made more clear for a boat dummy?
 * Notes
 * ... was the first ship ever commissioned that was designed and built as an aircraft carrier,
 * Shortly thereafter, however, based on observations of landing trials on Furious and HMS Argus, the world's first flush-decked aircraft carrier,

I had to click out to another article to discover what "Jill" and "Judy" were.

If the Sino-Japanese war was between China and Japan, why isn't it an endash instead of a hyphen? Or is it exclusively used as a hyphenated prefix? Unclear on this.

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.