Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Ise/archive1

Japanese battleship Ise

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Built during World War I, Ise 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 Ise'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. The article went through a MilHist ACR last year and I've tweaked it a little since then. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and consistency in English styles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
What a nice article you've.


 * I can see dozens and dozens "American meters" in the infobox.
 * There are some noughts I don't think they're necessary like.
 * "(683 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
 * "(94 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
 * "(708 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
 * "(31 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
 * "(104 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
 * "(21.0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
 * "(5.0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
 * The article use both American and British draughts. In the and a draught of 8.93 metres (29 ft 4 in) at deep load. and the and their draft to 9.45 metres (31 ft 0 in). and again "draft" in the The weight reductions decreased her draft to 9.03 metres (29 ft 8 in).

The article use both Vice-Admirals. Commanded by Vice-Admiral Shirō Takasu,, The ships of the Fourth Carrier Division were assigned to the Main Body of the 1st Mobile Fleet, commanded by Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa. Which one should the article use? Also switch the link of the Vice-Admiral from the second sentence to the first one
 * were replaced by twenty license-built Hotchkiss 2.5-centimetre (1 in) Type 96 "American license"
 * Saved by heavy anti-aircraft fire and expert manoeuvering, This is a weird "manoeuvering". Shouldn't it be manoeuvring?
 * The American submarine USS Halibut spotted the Fourth Carrier Division at 17:42 and manoeuvered to attack, Looks like again a mix of American and British English word "manoeuvred"
 * "American license" in the second note.
 * Note 2 and 3 should have each of them a citation.
 * Do you mean 3 and 4? Why? 3 is just a simple statement about which sources I used. And 4 is a simple time-zone explanation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weird I really thought it was 2 and 3 maybe I was in a little dwaal for a moment. I guess never mind then.

That's everything from me. Good luck. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The image File:Japanese_destroyer_Akizuki_in_1944.jpg in the sentence Ise (center left) during the Battle of Cape Engaño "American center".
 * Manoeuvring, in all its permutations, just messes with my head; It just looks wrong to me. And I still have internalized licence. Thanks for catching all of these!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I know your feeling Sturm, as child I learnt alot of American English words even I'm not a native English speaker. I was also shocked about the manoeuvring and maneuvering differences when I found that out (even we here uses the British one in our language). But I more used and learnt British words instead of American words. Now the British English is part of my daily bases because the UK lies closser to me than the US. Anyway it looks a straight FA-class in my opinion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead

 * "Great Kantō earthquake" The upper case G seems a little odd.
 * That's the formal name of the earthquake.
 * "with improvements to her armour and propulsion machinery" Optional: -> 'to her armour and her propulsion machinery'? Currently it reads as if her armour machinery were improved.
 * "She participated in the Battle of Cape Engaño in late 1944, where she decoyed the American carrier fleet supporting the invasion of Leyte away from the landing beaches."
 * Could "Battle of Cape Engaño" be linked to the relevant section within Battle of Leyte Gulf.
 * "where she decoyed" My understanding is that she was a relatively minor component of a group o aircraft carriers and hybrid battleships which decoyed TF 38.
 * Good catch


 * "until she was sunk during American airstrikes in July" "during" -> 'by'?
 * "After the war Ise was scrapped in 1946–1947" one of "After the war" and "in 1946–1947" seems redundant to me.
 * I'm not so sure that most readers know that the war ended in '45.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Design and description

 * "During the ships' modernisation during the 1930s" Optional: "during" twice in five words.
 * "and to compensate for the weight of the additional armour" "... the additional armour"; what additional armour? It has not previously been mentioned.
 * Covered in the Protection section
 * "Their displacement increased over 5,000 long tons" -> 'by over'?
 * "The turbines were replaced by four geared Kampon turbines" Optional: this reads as if there were four gears; although I can't think of a better phraseology.
 * If there was a hyphen between four and geared you'd be correct, but...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "The fuel storage of the ships was increased which gave them a range of 7,870 nautical miles" Comma after "increased".
 * "light AA guns were also added while the pair of 14 cm guns on the upper deck were removed" Comma after "added".
 * "also consisted of two layers of high-tensile steel, but only a total of 30 mm (1.2 in) thick" Optional: -> 'but only 30 mm (1.2 in) thick in total'?
 * "A pair of directors for the 12.7 cm AA guns were added, one on each side of the forward superstructure, in the early 1930s" Optional: -> 'A pair of directors for the 12.7 cm AA guns were added in the early 1930s, one on each side of the forward superstructure.'

Construction and career

 * Really a FAC comment, so feel free to ignore. "The ship was overhauled in 1928–1929, during which her forward superstructure" Strictly. "during which" should be linked to 'an overhaul'; "was overhauled" could be linked to 'during which time' or similar.
 * I dunno, "time" seems redundant give that the years are given immediately before.
 * "for a total of twenty-two. The ship's air group was intended to consist of a dozen each Yokosuka D4Y Suisei dive bombers (Allied reporting name "Judy"), modified for catapult launching, and Aichi E16A reconnaissance aircraft (Allied reporting name "Paul")" "twenty-two" or "a dozen each" (= 24)?
 * The same source uses both numbers, so I think that the initial plans might have been for 24 and were later revised down to 22, but it never states as much.
 * Then you need to state that in the article. (That whether it was 22 or 24 is not clear.)


 * "and an E27 radar detector were installed in 22–26 July" Optional: reads clunkily to me, -> 'installed between 22 and 26 July'?
 * "The Main Body's role was to act as decoys to attract attention" -> 'as a decoy'.
 * You sure? BritEng is different than my native AmEng in how it handles collective nouns.
 * If it is BritEng, then yes, I am sure. If it is AmEng I would have expected it to consider "The Main Body" as a singular, but would not be 100%.


 * "and was near missed by two bombs" 'Near miss' as a verb? Oh please!
 * "although one small bomb struck No. 2 turret" To what, if any, effect?
 * None noted (it was small!)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Battle of Cape Engaño and afterwards" is a lengthy section, with little to connect the two parts. I would recommend splitting it.
 * "1,600 metres (0.99 mi)" "0.99 mi" Spurious accuracy. Could I suggest sigfig=1? (And possibly abbr=off?)
 * "it took three days to pump her dry and the IJN planned to drydock Ise for repairs" Suggest "Ise" -> 'her'.

Infobox

 * "as hybrid carriers, 1945" Should that be 'as a hybrid carrier, 1945'?

Nice work. Reminds me of reviewing ''Hyūga. '', also a fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The point of doing an article on another ship in the class well after the first one get promoted is to make all the necessary changes illustrated by the first one's FAC ahead of time, but I think that I singularly failed to do that any where near as thoroughly as I thought I had. Thanks for catching all these. There are a couple of questions, though, that I need some clarification on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Sturmvogel 66. You haven't pinged me, so I am assuming that you haven't finished your response. If I am wrong, let me know and I'll get back to you. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm done with my response and have addressed most of your concerns. Just a couple of questions mixed in with all the stuff above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * All good. Two comments above responding to your queries. Otherwise its a wrap. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lengerer uses both numbers, so I've tweaked the text accordingly. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text


 * Use upright rather than fixed px size to scale up images
 * Done.
 * File:Battleship_Ise_(postcard).jpg is missing a publication date, as per the copyright tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed the article at the Milhist A-class review last year, and I'm happy with the article. There is, however, a dupe link that crept in at some point between then and now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me go see if I can stomp the impertinent little bugger.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Source review:
 * References used as all high quality sources from experts in the field
 * On consistency - one author is linked, but others have articles but aren't (Norman Polmar, Jürgen Rohwer) - I'd recommend either linking them all or removing the one. Citations and references are otherwise formatted consistently. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks for checking these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Support I've read it over and see no issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)