Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Yashima/archive1

Japanese battleship Yashima

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Continuing my series on ill-fated battleships, Yashima was one of the first battleships in Japanese service and had to be ordered from Britain. She participated in the initial battles of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, but struck a mine and sank a few months later, after trying to go to the assistance of another battleship that also sank. The Japanese were able to keep the news of her loss from leaking to the Russians who had no idea that the odds against them had dramatically decreased. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a couple of months ago and I believe is in good shape. As usual I'd like reviewers to look for any remnants of AmEnglish, as well as any unfelicitous prose and unexplained or unlinked jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done


 * Article text says the ship was launched 28 December, infobox says 28 February
 * Fixed.
 * Check alphabetization of References


 * Be consistent in whether you include dates in short cites that don't require them for disambiguation - you have it for Heald but not the others
 * Why include UK for Gravesend but not Alnwick? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even noticed that somebody else had added Heald to the article. Thanks for venturing a little outside your usual realm.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Splitting his fire proved to be a poor decision as the Japanese Add "to" after "as".
 * That doesn't make sense to me.
 * Makarov being one of the 677 killed Remove "being" with "is".
 * I think you mean "was", fixed.
 * Yashima (八島 Yashima) was Shouldn't we add a Kanji and a Rōmaji in the template?
 * Be nice, but since I don't read Japanese, I rely on others to do that sort of thing for me.
 * the command of Rear Admiral Nashiba Tokioki Shouldn't Rear Admiral has an hyphen?
 * Indeed.
 * Thanks. Need one point clarified by you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, mate. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sup Sturmvogel; alt text for images? Cheers, ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't add any to the infobox image, but added for the others.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
I found little to quibble about at Milhist ACR, and only have two points: That's it, a fine job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * suggest "Nashiba put to sea with his flagship Hatsuse, two other battleships, Shikishima and Yashima,"
 * suggest "for the rest of the war the surviving crewmen were assigned to four auxiliary gunboats that were tasked to guard Port Arthur"
 * Thanks, PM, nice to hear.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kges1901

 * File:Yashima (ship, 1897) - Plan - Cassier's 1898-02.png could be used in the design section, while several other images in the commons cat might enhance the service section
 * As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to build such warships --> As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to construct such warships to avoid repetition of build/built
 * I've used this language extensively and you're the first person, including myself, to catch that over-reliance on build/built?
 * Don't ship article design sections usually link back to the class article with the main article hatnote?
 * Never seen the point of that given that the class article is linked in the lede, the infobox and the navbox footer.
 * Yashima, an --> Yashima, named after an
 * No, "named after an old name for Japan" doesn't work, which is why I had to have the reader make the slight stretch that the ship was named for the country.
 * The phrasing used in the article for Fuso works best IMO.
 * I concur.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No Russians observed Yashima sink, so the Japanese were able to conceal her loss for more than a year --> The Japanese were able to conceal her loss for more than a year as no Russians observed her sink Kges1901 (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Great suggestions, keep it up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

One last comment: I've reworded the description of the Battle of Port Arthur based on the description of the 9 February 1904 engagement on the Battle of Port Arthur article. See if the changes are in accord with your sources. Kges1901 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Main issue is that the armored cruisers of Kamimura's 2nd Division also attacked, although the 1st Division led the attack. Which means the wording needs to be tweaked accordingly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reworded again. Changed to Support Kges1901 (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comments
Image review? -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Colorized Yashima.jpg: Does "colorized" imply that the image was originally in black and white and someone else then coloured it?
 * Yes.
 * Do we know who that "else" is? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's available on the source link, although it has no bearing on copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Yashima NH 58968.jpg: A little bothered by the lack of source information on the origin page. Are we sure the license is correct?
 * It's an assumption, but the photo may have been taken when the ship was in the UK, just after completion. At any rate the NHHC says that there are no known copyright issues.
 * All images seem to be in good sections. Only two have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Sturm, it'd be good to get comments from someone outside MilHist for another perspective -- let's see if we can scare one up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I read it through and saw no problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)