Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū/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 User:Ian Rose 10:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC).

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the third article on the six Japanese carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor to make it to FAC thus far. Hiryu was completed in the late 1930s and briefly participated in the 2nd Sino-Japanese War and the occupation of French IndoChina before the start of the Pacific War. She participated in most of the early carrier operations of that war before being sunk during the Battle of Midway. The article recently passed a thorough MilHist A-class review and should meet the FAC criteria. I look forward to working with reviewers to correct any weaknesses that they might identify.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure what the established protocol is for these kinds of pages, but why are the measurements for a Japanese aircraft carrier in American units (feet, inches, etc.). Seems kind of strange to have it that way, especially since I believe Japan had adopted the metric system 50 years before this carrier was built. Mattximus (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, normally I do just that and can't remember why I didn't. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Why does the imperial measurement of length, beam, and draft vary between text and infobox?
 * Good catch, fixed.
 * Missing bibliographic info for Chesneau 1980
 * Added.
 * Check order of authors for Hata
 * Given as per the book, presumably in order of contribution rather than alphabetical.
 * Which order is per the book, the one in short cites or the one in bibliography? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Zim or Zimm? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for reviewing the article for all of these nits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment (there has a lot to be done)
 * Why is the section about Midway nearly half as long as the whole article, when there is an own article about the battle and that even mentioned as the main article? You could and should easily eliminate more than half of the text in that section.
 * What we've got is a detailed account of everything that the ship or its aircraft did during the battle. She was the longest-surviving Japanese carrier during the battle and did more than the others. Midway is exceedingly well documented and I've used all that info here. So, no, it couldn't be shorted.
 * Why does the Midway-section have a Main article-cap but the Indian Ocean Raid and Pearl Harbor-sections haven't?
 * Good idea. Added.
 * Nearly two and a half years of active war service are dealt in seven sentences and after that you have this huge texts about only seven months. Seems a little Anglo-Americancentric.
 * Reflects the limited info on the ship's very limited participation in the Sino-Japanese War and her far more active participation in the Pacific War.

All in all the article is as the early IJN Aircraft Carriers were: top heavy with the Pacific War and American sources (only one japanese author about a japanese carrier? Aren't there any more who published in English?) but has, with you as its main author, the potential for great improvement. --Bomzibar (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your vote of confidence, but, sadly, there's been very limited information on Japanese carriers translated into English in the last few decades. I expect that rather more's been published in Japanese, but really couldn't say, aside from a few picture books. But look more closely at the bibliography, you'll find three books with Japanese authors or co-authors; I do the best I can with what's available. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From my work on Japanese World War II-related topics, I can confirm Sturmvogel's comment above. There isn't even a genuinely comprehensive history of the IJN in the war (most books on the topic peter out after about early 1943 and compress the remainder of the war into some sketchy summary chapters focused mainly on the handful of major battles). Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Support from Maralia - I made a couple edits to link on first mention, tweak punctuation in some very long sentences, etc. A few remaining issues:
 * I see both Kate and "Kate", as well as "Val".
 * Fixed the issue with the Kate, but couldn't find anything wrong with Val.
 * Ditto inconsistency between 'Zeroes" and 'Zeros'.
 * Done.
 * These two sentences look like they're written from Soryu's perspective:
 * "From a position 230 nautical miles (430 km; 260 mi) north of Oahu, Sōryū and the other five carriers launched two waves of aircraft on the morning of 8 December 1941."
 * "While at Hashirajima, Sōryū's air group was based ashore at Tomitaka Airfield, near Saiki, Ōita, and conducted flight and weapons training with the other First Air Fleet carrier units."
 * Stupid computer not noticing these copy-paste issues.

Thanks for a good read. Maralia (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Hiryū had eight Zeros aloft, along with 12 more from the other carriers and all told they accounted for five of the British bombers for the loss of one of Hiryū's Zeros." - This sentence is wonky; the parenthetical 'along with 12 more from the other carriers' is missing an ending comma, but that would obfuscate the subject of the subsequent independent clause. Perhaps 'collectively' would be an improvement over 'all told': "Hiryu had eight Zeros aloft; joined by 12 from the other carriers, they collectively accounted for..."
 * Good idea. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Support - Reviewed the article for A & I think its ready for promotion. Kirk (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose and apparent comprehensiveness, though I am not a military scholar. I do have a few suggestions. Sorry to leave this so long:


 * Lede:
 * Footnote 1. I suggest that you, rather than footnoting the statement about which practice the article will follow, that you set the sources out following the sentence, with a "See, e.g." preceding. Personally, I do not footnote in notes, because it is two jumps for the reader and because the numbering gets sort of out of order.
 * I cite every footnote as the easiest way to source the info. I prefer this method over yours because sometimes I use the same cite in the main body and in the footnote.
 * " participated in the Battle of Midway" I don't like participated, it is much too passive. Any objection to "fought" or a similar term?
 * That usage is very common in many military histories dealing with individual ships, aircraft or weapons, but I was taken to task many, many moon ago by a reviewer who wondered why I was personifying the ship and giving it agency rather than to the crew. It might read a bit like passive voice, but I rather like zhe point.


 * Armament
 * "the port-side director was positioned below flight deck level on the port side" Perhaps delete "on the port side" or at least change to "on that side"? Mildly redundant.
 * Indeed.
 * "This was the standard Japanese light AA gun" I would specify the gun instead of saying "this", as you've been sidetracked talking about the mounts.
 * Good idea.


 * Armor
 * Would anything be gained by saying what the ship's deck was made of? I'd imagine steel but perhaps the type of steel would be interesting (not my field, just suggesting)
 * I wish I knew what type of steel it was, but none of my sources mention that.


 * Construction/service
 * "the Japanese occupation of northern Indochina" as in the invasion part or the ruling against the will of the locals part?
 * Good catch, the actual invasion.
 * Kidu Butai" is linked when it was mentioned unlinked in the prior section and given a somewhat different description.
 * Fixed.


 * Indian Ocean raid
 * "although the fighters from the other carriers also made claims" This information seems like it should be next to the claims made by Hiryū's fighters.
 * Agreed.


 * MIdway
 * Engrossing reading, I must say.
 * "two Wildcats who shot down one torpedo bomber" I'm not certain of your use of "who" here when you are, it seems, generally using "that" to describe planes.
 * How about "which" instead?
 * "23 degrees 17 minutes later" as minutes is also a subdivision of degrees, suggest changing 17 to seventeen, and it looks better anyway.
 * Moved "17 minutes later" to the beginning of the sentence.
 * " thirteen Zeros on CAP (a composite force of survivors from the other carriers)" You've been mentioning CAP for quite some time, why explain it now?
 * While each carrier had contributed fighters to the CAP throughout the battle, at this point the CAP was formed by aircraft flying from Hiryu that had originally been based on the other, sunken, carriers.
 * "The fires were severe enough that the remaining American aircraft attacked the other ships escorting Hiryū," presumably because they deemed the carrier sunk? Consider adding the reason.
 * Done. Always glad to have non-specialist eyes on a ship article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done. After reading of the swath of destruction this vessel left in its path, I understand why the loss of four of them was such a blow to the Japanese.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your responses seem satisfactory to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Image review
 * File:Hiryu burning.jpg - the description says this photo was taken by a plane from Hosho, but the license tag says it's a USN photo. The NHHC page states that it was a "Donation of Kazutoshi Hando, 1970", so it needs to be changed to the standard Japanese license.
 * I've changed it to the Japanese license and added the US PD-URAA license as well as I believe it still needs a US license. Thanks for getting to this so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to go now, and no problem. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It'd also be PD in the US because the NHHC considers such donations to be in the PD. I had an email saying this, but I think it was on my university email, which is now defunct. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All other photos are demonstrably PD in Japan and the US. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - grand article, as per Sturm's usual. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.