Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier/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) 11:13, 5 December 2015.

Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The Shokaku-class carriers were completed just before the beginning of the Pacific War and have been judged to have been the best aircraft carriers in the world at that time. They participated in almost every carrier battle during the war until their loss in 1944. Both ships missed the Battle of Midway and thus, by default, became the core of the IJN's striking forces for the rest of the war. They sank two of the four American fleet carriers lost during the war, plus a British light carrier. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review which included a thorough image review. I'd like reviewers to see if there is any unexplained jargon and look for any infelicities of prose as I believe that this article meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Fig_of_japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shokaku_in_1942.gif: what is the source for the information presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's CC-BY-SA-3.0 and is the work of the copyright holder.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I'm not worried about copyright status so much as verifiability, in terms of where the information presented came from. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments leaning support. Just a few things:
 * Background
 * What does "endurance" mean in this context?
 * Armament
 * Are the guns or the gun mounts grouped in pairs?
 * Both. Each mount had two guns and the 8 mounts were grouped into four pairs, one pair on each quadrant of the ship.
 * Protection
 * "25-millimeter deck of Ducol steel" English equivalent might be worth adding.
 * converted on first use.
 * Careers
 * It might be worth knowing where the ships were located in relation to Honolulu at the time of the attack.
 * I don't see a good place to add that without adding a sentence or two to set that up.
 * The second sentence of the second paragraph has the word "attack" four times in close proximity. Suggest synonyms.  Struck?
 * Excellent idea.
 * "on 5 April" the second consecutive "on" phrase. Suggest "5 April" be inserted before "Easter" and the existing words, er, struck.
 * " Following the lesson taught by the Battle of Midway" given that Battle of Midway is mentioned and linked just before, perhaps, "Having learned the lesson taught at Midway" or similar.
 * I like that.
 * "he bulk of their air groups were transferred to Rabaul to bolster the defenses there, just in time to participate in the raid on Rabaul" Two Rabauls and a "there".
 * Reworded.
 * That's it. Well done as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Source review all sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and except for possibly below, are consistent in their citation.
 * "Jentschura and Jung" this is the only source to have the publisher be the United States Naval Institute, the others from Annapolis say Naval Institute Press. Are we OK here?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the name was changed after the Jentschura book was published.

Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

 Comments Support by PM67 Otherwise, I consider this article meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I reviewed this article for Milhist A-class last month and am happy with the prose.
 * all toolbox checks are ok except alt text.
 * the speed in the infobox doesn't match the speed in the body
 * the range in the infobox doesn't match the range in the body
 * Good catches. I didn't even have the designed speed in the text. Glad you looked at this so thoroughly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No prob, supporting now. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments above. I'm satisfied that it meets source review standards, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.