Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Yamashiro/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 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC).

Japanese battleship Yamashiro

 * Nominator(s): Dank, Sturmvogel 66

The big battleship-on-battleship fights are the images that seem to stick in peoples' minds ... that's kind of the point of all that weaponry and armor ... but because battleships cost so much, navies have usually been very reluctant to risk them. In 1944, with its back to the wall, the Imperial Japanese Navy did risk it all ... with dramatic results, in the case of Yamashiro. See for yourself. This FAC completes the Fusō-class battleship trilogy. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a WikiCup nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments: nice article. Support @ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Images: File:Japanese battleships Yamashiro, Fuso and Haruna.jpg isn't a work of the U.S. Navy, but as an NHHC photograph it is in the public domain in the United States. File:Yamashiro and Kaga.jpg and File:Surigao straight.jpg are licensed correctly. All images are licensed correctly.
 * It's not a photo taken by a Navy employee, but it is one that the Navy acquired somehow. So which exact tag is appropriate?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've used PD-US and added a link to the NHHC's PD declaration. PD-because could work as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "other four operable 14-inch guns until almost 04:00" - does this mean other four operable turrets? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, her aft turrets had had their magazines flooded earlier. Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed, glad you liked it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Are Naval Institute and Naval Institute Press the same entity?
 * Name changed over time. Names as given in the book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Parshall & Tully: should specify DC. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for checking these out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support [Caveat: This reviewer is a WikiCup contestant]
 * Length overall, beam, standard load dispacment, and maximum speed as-built are different in the infobox and in the design section.
 * Good catches.
 * " the ship was equipped to operate three floatplanes, although no hangar was provided." -- So where then were the planes stored?
 * Out in the open. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "but after two to four torpedo hits and two more near the starboard engine room," -- torpedoes? The previous graph says there was a ceasefire order on both sides.
 * Agreed, I liked my wording better, a reviewer asked for that change in a previous FAC, I'll change it. - Dank (push to talk)
 * There's some kind of access issue with an external link.
 * It was working recently, let's see if it comes back. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest but don't require alt text. Other than that, the images appear to be properly licensed, I see no problems with article stability and neutrality, and refs all look good. Will await responses. — Ed! (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Now I'm just waiting to see about the link and if it comes back. Since it's an external link and not a ref, I'd take it out, but that's up to you guys. — Ed! (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's gone.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Dana boomer (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Comments: Overall, looks quite good. Once the above are addressed, I will be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Description - is the "deep load" term used in the second paragraph the same as the "full load" term used and linked in the first paragraph?
 * Yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Armament, "the elevation of the main guns was increased to +43 degrees," Maybe "maximum elevation"? I'm assuming they didn't just stay locked it at 43 degrees all the time.
 * Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Armament, "from 27,800 to 35,450 yards (25,400 to 32,420 m)." All of the other conversions have meters first.
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Armament, "The configuration of the AA guns varied significantly". Varied significantly between what? Between ships? Over time?
 * The latter, clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Armor, "The ship's waterline armor belt was 305 to 229 millimeters (12 to 9 in) thick;" Why largest to smallest? In the next sentence, it's smallest to largest - best to keep consistent.
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Armor, "while the casemates of the 152 mm guns were protected by 152 mm armor plates." The plating was exactly the same thickness as the size of the guns? Was this a coincidence or planned for some reason?
 * AFAIK, it was just coincidence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Construction and service - are all of the captains red linked in this section notable enough to have articles at some point?
 * Yes, they all became admirals.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any information on the ship after it sank? Was there any attempt to raise it? How deep is the water it's in? Is it a dive site? A memorial (with over 1,600 sailors dead)? I see there are coordinates for the wreck in the External links section, so we know where it is...
 * Various people have claimed to have discovered the wreck, and, but nothing's been confirmed in the dozen years since, so I've deleted the coordinates as should have happened earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any way that a sentence to this end could be added to the end of the article? Dana boomer (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review; always good to have someone from outside the project to check things over for unclear jargon, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks great, and thanks for the quick responses. Changed to support, above. Dana boomer (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.