Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Hyūga/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2018.

Japanese battleship Hyūga

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Built during World War I, Hyuga didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Hyuga's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and any remnants of AmEnglish. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few months ago, during which there was much discussion of some of the images. I deleted the images until I could prove to my satisfaction that they were official photos and thus war booty. I've reinstated and retagged them with the appropriate license. I believe that the article satisfies the FA criteria and stand ready to address any issues identified by reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment Support from Vami_IV

 * 1) I advise the use of harv references. – Vami _IV✠  02:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, won't be happening. I much prefer my own idiosyncratic style that involves less typing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Acceptable, but unfortunate. I have nothing else to offer but my support. – Vami _IV✠  13:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And thanks for that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Just a few things.
 * " In addition, the forward pair of 14-centimetre guns in the forecastle were removed at this time ..." the reader may take the "in addition" as building on the quote immediately preceding. I might say "during the reconstruction" instead of "at this time".
 * " Captain Shigeushi Nakagawa assumed command on 30 April[13] and the ship was completed on that same day, too late for service in World War I.[18] " I might cut "on". Also, as we are using UK spellings (armoured), should "World War I" be "the First World War"? (plus obviously similar usages for WWII)(also are you going Pearl Harbor or Harbour?)
 * There isn't actually a strong national connection between the UK and First World War, etc. I've got plenty of British-published books on hand that use WWI.
 * " Beginning on 27 March 1932, she patrolled off the coast of China during the First Shanghai Incident, together with her sister ship Ise and the battlecruisers Kongo and Kirishima.[13]" Our article on same says the Shanghai Incident ended on 3 March 1932.
 * Good catch.
 * "When the war started for Japan on 8 December,[Note 4] the division, reinforced by the battleships Nagato and Mutsu and the light carrier Hōshō, sortied from Hashirajima to the Bonin Islands as distant support for the 1st Air Fleet attacking Pearl Harbor, and returned six days later." I imagine the sortie had to have begun before 8 December, if so, possibly the language used is a bit ambiguous.
 * The Bonins aren't very far from Kyushu and it appears that they did sail on the same day as the Pearl Harbor attack.
 * "she returned to Kure for repairs." Kure is linked on a second use.
 * Good catch
 * "the same day that the conversion officially began. It actually began two months later.[13] " I might say "Work" instead of "It".
 * Excellent idea.
 * "and began flying to bases in Southern Kyushu;" I'd lower-case "southern".
 * You are inconsistent on the capitalization of "Main Body".
 * Sometimes the IJN formally designed parts of the fleet as the main body for various operations, while other times it's just a handy collective noun.
 * " The convoy reached the Matsu Islands, off the Chinese coast, on the 15th and was unsuccessfully attacked by the submarine USS Rasher before they reached Zhoushan Island, near Shanghai, China, that night." I would cut ", China" as unneeded.
 * After referring to cruising off the coast of China after the First Shanghai Incident that seems reasonable.
 * Otherwise excellent as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt review; see if my changes address your concerns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from PM
I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have looked at the pretty minor changes since, and consider it meets the FA criteria. A single nitpick: That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * During the reconstruction, the forward pair of 14-centimetre guns in the forecastle were removed at this time . Redundant, as we've already established when this happened at the beginning of the sentence.
 * Done and thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

 * There are no citations to Whitley, listed among the sources
 * I don't really see the point of adding the subscription template when there is no online link
 * The sources section would look tidier if isbn formats were standardised into the modern 13-digit format.

No spotchecks carried out. Subject to the above the sources look in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Whitley moved to a new further reading section.
 * Subscriptions are available through the editor, who publishes his email for interested parties. I can add that if thought necessary.
 * I see no need to convert existing 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digit ones as both are equally findable in our software.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. It is the inconsistency that jars. I don't know why you're so resistant on this point, which I've raised with you before. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Brian has a point here. Every FAC I’ve seen brings up this issue if it exists. It shouldn’t be that card to convert the citations to one format or the other?— White Shadows Let’s Talk 06:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the converter. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed the ISBN issue. They should all be at 10 now.-- White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose it does look jarring, but to me, it's a matter of Emerson's consistency and I'm not willing to spend the effort to make them consistent. If some great soul like White Shadows chooses to spend the time to do so, kudos to him, but I'll not do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've got to say, that comes across as rather flippant. It took literally 45 seconds for me to update the ISBN and make them consistent. If we're promoting articles to FA-status, surely being "willing to spend the effort to make them [ISBNs] consistent" is something that isn't too much to ask at an FAC.-- White Shadows Let’s Talk 03:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Arrogant rather than flippant, I'd say, not to mention self-defeating - more time spent evading the issue than dealing with it! Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was trying for both, actually.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy
That's all for me. Nice work, as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on BrEng, but isn't it "modernised"?
 * "During the ships' modernization during the 1930s" - can we lose one of those "during"s?
 * I'd link fuel oil
 * I'd shift the images in the design section to the left, as they're being pushed down by the infobox on (I would assume most) computer monitors, which is then pushing the rest of the images from the sections they should be in.
 * "sailors aboard the sailing ship" - there's something about this that grates on me - I don't know if it's the repetition of "sail" or what, but I might suggest "the latter ship" or something along those lines.
 * "22,000 metres (24,000 yd) ahead of the convoy" - it strikes me odd to measure that distance in meters, rather than km/nmi.
 * Good eye. Appreciate the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - nice work. Just a suggestion, it might make sense to put the photo of her original configuration in the infobox (or the aerial shot in 1927) and put the colorized photo in the Cape Engano section, since the ship only appeared in her converted form for, what, a year and a half of her nearly thirty years in service. Parsecboy (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (But it's such a great photo!) I have to agree with your reasoning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Fifelfoo
This review should be read as fully supportive. The three outstanding questions probably just require a "no, no, no" (as expected from this reviewer) from the proposer. Lack of ability to recognise centrally cited source, 1c/2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Where are we with addressing the last several bits of feedback, etc? -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Q: Myth of a Clean Wehrmacht issues in your sources?
 * Q: Social history issues: workers, women, "racial" I'm thinking here Korean issues in construction?
 * Q: Does this article WEIGHT a historiography section for its topic?
 * Published by whom, where, "Lengerer, Hans (March 2011). Ahlberg, Lars, ed. "The Japanese 14"-Gunned Battleships: An Abstract of the Fusō and Ise Classes – Part I". Contributions to the History of Imperial Japanese Warships (Paper X): 5–42.(subscription required)" and others such. I'm not troubled by quality, but by finding the work based on the citation.
 * Ahlberg, Lars also appears to be the publisher. Lengerer is pretty obviously EXPERT and HQRS, as is Ahlberg. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this comes down to the difficulty of getting a handle on what kind of document is being cited, due to wikipedia's template's inability to handle the unusual publication mode of this journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline I don't have enough citation information or reference to determine if a central source set, Lengerer, is HQRS.
 * What is the relevance of the first three questions to this article?
 * The issues are irregularly published and can be purchased from Ahlberg. If necessary I can send copies of the issues used here to a source reviewer, but I'll be offline for the next five days or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1bcd, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral. Sample answers might be, "No acts of criminality appeared in the construction and deployment of Hyūga in the reliable sources / Hyūga's shore party engaged in X during the Sino-Japanese war, this was not raised at any post-war tribunal, as it is discussed in the article;" "The HQRS have been fully used to cover social history topics / Korean women workers engaged in a riot during conversion which was put down which appears in the article;" "There is no historiographical debate on the history of the Hyūga in the HQRS / initially the Johnson school believed X, but this was refuted by the Bloggs school in the 1990s which appears in the article."  I'm asking because you'd be best placed to know having mastered the sources, and because the questions go to 1bcd of the criteria.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, a light bulb goes off. If anything like any of that stuff was in the sources, I'd have added them, just to fill out the material on the ship's first couple of decades, for which there is very little material available compared to Western ships. I was completely thrown by your reference to the Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht and couldn't figure out the connection. Just as a general point, aside from a few ships' crews involved in the 1937 Shanghai Incident, the IJN's ships played very little part in the 2nd Sino-Japanese War and the general Japanese refusal to discuss or acknowledge the atrocities committed by its troops during that time really isn't relevant, like it would be for an article on an Army infantry division that participated in the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers. As you might understand because of a project wide criticism of under attention to "unpleasant" or "unlawful" acts in history articles I'm asking all proposers.  I thought I'd also chuck the "social history big three," and "whether there's any historiographical debate," onto my standard list as well.  Construction / conversion and labour came up, as many of us know that shipyards are some of the most conflict ridden industrial sites, and I know the Home Islands were not the best at respecting Japanese, let alone Korean, labour.  Some proposers/editors aren't aware of the role of these topics in "completeness."  Thank you so very much!  Happy editing, look forward to reviewing more articles! Fifelfoo (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that there's only a single book on a Japanese shipyard in English and I'm not sure how honest it is about labor relations as I believe that it was commissioned by Mitsubishi. I'll have to try and track down a copy through ILL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely an "above and beyond" issue, but hopefully it will help with many articles in your area of expertise and interest. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with the author's expertise, I've just been banging my head against the citation to clarify it without an extensive note, but I think the citation is adequate to allow a reader to contact Ahlberg and acquire the material. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding, but everything should be good now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I miss an image review above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, lemme ask Nikkimaria and see what she thinks of the new licenses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest scaling up the recognition drawing
 * Increased to 300 px
 * File:HyugaAerial.jpg needs a publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Done and thanks for your prompt response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.