Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Mutsu/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 Graham Colm 16:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC). 

Japanese battleship Mutsu

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mutsu had a bit of a controversial beginning as she was not deemed complete when the Washington Naval Treaty was being drafted and was thus subject to being scrapped like all of the other battleships and battlecruisers then building. The Japanese claimed that she had been commissioned before the Treaty deadline and were unwilling to scrap her. Her existence therefore forced the terms of the treaty to be revised to allow the other Great Powers to build a limited number of equivalent ships. For all the fuss at the beginning, Mutsu's subsequent career was uneventful, even during the Pacific War because of the Imperial Japanese Navy's policy of preserving her battleships for the climatic battle against the Americans. She participated in several battles in support roles and only fired her guns once at the enemy. The ship was destroyed in an magazine explosion in 1943 for reasons unknown. Her wreck was extensively salvaged after the war and little remains. The article passed a MilHist A-class review three weeks ago and meets the FAC criteria, I believe. I look forward to working with reviewers who aren't MilHist people to identify things that may not be clear to the average educated layman and to addressing any other lingering issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and made a minor tweak. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice article; one strange omission. You've mentioned the "narrowly saved from scrapping" detail both here and in the A-class review, and it's discussed in Nagato-class battleship - but for some reason it's not actually in the article! This seems a bit odd, since it's an interesting bit of early history... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's indeed very odd, especially since none of my other reviewers noticed the omission. Thanks for catching it!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * "Fate" in infobox: although the explosion happened on June 8, her sinking wasn't complete until June 9
 * True, but she was basically sunk on 8 June with only her stern fragment remaining afloat.
 * As complement changed over time, the initial figure in the infobox isn't entirely accurate
 * Added.
 * Be consistent in how you format short cites with multiple authors
 * Good catch.
 * What language is Skwiot? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * English and Polish. Thanks for catching these nits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment Minded to support. A few things:


 * Lede
 * Second paragraph, second sentence. It was not clear to me on first reading that the explosion sank the ship until I read the rest of the paragraph.  I think you need to make that clear in this sentence.
 * Description
 * Start the description by naming her, not with "The ship"
 * "During World War II, the crew totaled around 1,475 men in 1942." I'm troubled by this sentence. I understand you are trying to give us a wartime figure as contrasted with the peacetime you've just told us, but the "during World War II" clashes with the "in 1942" since the 1942 necessarily implies WWII.  Additionally, that 1,475 figure is a very precise estimate.  I suggest you rephrase and let's see how it shakes out.
 * Propulsion
 * If I read the section correctly, the 1930s reconstruction eliminated the need for coal. If so, that should be made clearer.  What was done with the former coal bunkers?
 * It's not clear what happened to them in my sources. Likely either converted into oil tanks or removed entirely. I rephrased to emphasize that all of the boilers were replaced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Armament
 * The word turrets occurs three times closely in succession. I think the middle one can be eliminated fairly easily.
 * "The unsatisfactory two-pounders " This is phrased as though you had discussed with us the reasons why the two-pounders were not satisfactory. You have not, I believe.
 * Fire control
 * "the Type 94. A new anti-aircraft director, the Type 94," this reads as if talking about two different things. If so, you should certainly try to distinguish them better.  If not, that should be made clearer.  Or possibly a different number was intended.
 * Problem is that they had two different Type 94 fire-control systems, one for surface guns and the other for AA guns, and I don't want readers to get them confused by mentioning the designations in close conjunction. I'm open to suggestions about how to rephrase that bit to keep the reader clear on what's being discussed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say, "also dubbed the Type 94" or some such.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Construction
 * "and for the Meiji Emperor's personal name, Mutsuhito" How strong is the source on "named after" rather than just "shares name"? I did some work on the Meiji article once upon a time and I'm mildly surprised that they would think it proper to call a ship after the personal name, which I understand isn't generally used in Japanese custom, that they do not use the personal name of the present or past emperors. That and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night (not really, but in other words take it for what it's worth).
 * You are right about the non-use of the personal name by the Japanese after their death and I was surprised to read the source after it was pointed out to me. Personally, I think that Mutsu's name was merely a happy coincidence with Meiji's personal name, but that's not what my source says.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "and a similar arrangement" possibly ", with a similar arrangement"
 * suggest "scrap" may be overlinking, especially as it is a pipe.
 * Doesn't show up as an overlink when I run Uchucha's script for checking that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * More a matter of opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be stated where she took the earthquake supplies. Suggest this could usefully be expanded.  It's interesting to the layman.
 * I only wish I could. All that I have is that the ship transported supplies, although I imagine that the crew did quite a bit more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph needs splitting. There's just too much detail for one paragraph. Possibly after the 1920s.
 * Investigation
 * "was most likely a suicidal crewman in No. 3 turret who had recently been accused of theft." This is clearly an identified person. He cannot have been known to be suicidal or he would not have been on duty.  It was presumably a theory that the man in question was suicidal, and this should be made clearer.
 * See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "and was confirmed" I assume the magazine explosion is meant, but there is a need for some rephrasing here.
 * Consider moving the word "fire" from where it is to the end of the line above.
 * Where is this bit?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Last paragraph in investigation. Then you can remove the quote marks from the indent.
 * Salvage
 * "In the early 1950s, the US occupation administration returned the wreck to the Japanese government. " This is vague. Possibly "title to" might be added (if correct) after "returned"? But I wonder if this sentence really adds anything, and might be usefully deleted.
 * Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "salvage operations" given the name of the company, perhaps this might be changed to "recovery operations" and some modification be made to the rest of the sentence to avoid the use of "recovery" later on.
 * Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Mutsu Memorial Museum" should Mutsu be italicized?
 * No idea, it's not italicized in my source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Surviving artifacts
 * What about the one at the Yasukuni Shrine? It should probably be mentioned again in this section, if it is on exhibit there.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Yasukuni Museum is located in the Yasukuni Shrine. See how my changes read; I'm not entirely content with my changes I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase things. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You describe the gun a bit differently here, "secondary". Possibly put it in the introductory text, "In addition to the 140 mm gun donated to the Yasukuni Shrine and today displayed at the Yasukuni Museum,(cite) the following …"

Support It all looks good. Interesting article. Amazing that a ship of war could get so far into one barely hearing a shot fired in anger.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking this over and catching all these infelicities and ambiguities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Provisional support --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyedited as usual so pls let me know (also as usual!) if any issues; outstanding points:
 * In the lead you say "They dispersed the survivors", "they" presumably referring to the IJN. In AusEng we tend to treat group nouns as singular, so we'd refer to the IJN as "it", while in BritEng they treat group nouns as plural and would say "they". I thought AmEng was the same as AusEng in this fashion but perhaps I'm wrong...
 * Changed it to read "the navy".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks, that'll do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Under Description you say "her existing boilers were replaced by ten lighter and more powerful oil-fired Kampon boilers, which had a working pressure of 22 kg/cm2" -- did the ten boilers have a total working pressure of 22 kg/cm2 or is the figure for each of them? If the latter suggest we say "each of which".
 * My sources don't really specify, but I suspect the former.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, may as well leave as is then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Structure, coverage and referencing seem solid.
 * I'll rely on Nikkimaria's source review, but it looks like you need an image review as well. Perhaps Nikki or GermanJoe could take care of that. Assuming it turns out okay, and subject to resolution of my points above, I'm happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments; I'll ping a couple of people to see if we can get another reviewer or two to close this out.

Image review
 * File:Mutsu33903u.tif: source link is dead
 * Fixed the link.
 * File:Mutsu20.jpg is tagged as lacking source information. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do here. Under Japanese law the image is copyright-free because of its age, regardless of its source. But I can't swear that it's PD in the US without a source. I can delete it although I strongly suspect that it's PD as well because of the URAA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.