Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tosa-class battleship/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 User:Ucucha 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC).

Tosa-class battleship

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel_66, Parsecboy, and The ed17

These class of battleships was one of the first Japanese responses to an enormous buildup in the US Navy announced by President Woodrow Wilson after the end of World War I that started a naval arms race between Japan, Great Britain and the United States. The enormously expensive ships involved caused the US to call a conference among the major powers to forestall the arms race that caused most of the ships already begun to be scrapped. The Tosa-class ships were among the casualties and one was used as a target ship to evaluate the effectiveness of her armor scheme and the other was converted into an aircraft carrier. This ship was one of those that attacked US forces at Pearl Harbor and Allied forces at Darwin, Australia before she was sunk at the Battle of Midway in 1942. This article had a MilHist A-class review four years ago, but has been substantially overhauled recently.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sturmvogel_66. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments. I'm doing some copyediting; feel free to revert.
 * "One revised version of the Nagato design, known as Design A-114, was accepted on 28 October by the Navy Minister, but was not proceeded with.": If nothing ever came of it, what's important enough about this particular design to single it out? - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not especially; I just thought it was interesting that they were already considering revising the design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "The IJN began reevaluating the Nagato design in light of lessons learned from the Battle of Jutland ...", "Hiraga's design for the ship reflected the lessons from the Battle of Jutland ...": If possible, it would be better not to say it twice.
 * Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "they were raised in height": If you know how many feet or meters they were raised, that might be a better way to put it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Some of the details in the infobox (for example, the successor) are unsourced
 * Predecessor and successor classes have never been specifically sourced.
 * Evans and Peattie or just Peattie?
 * Good catch, two different books, one of which was missing.
 * Be consistent in how you notate short citations with multiple authors
 * FN18: should use endash
 * No citations to Jentschura et al
 * Be consistent in when you include states
 * Lengerer 2010: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Self-published, sort of. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492
 * The three of you got together on a warship project, and the world didn't implode? I'm disappointed, I had expected this much awesomeness to have reached critical mass.
 * Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Image review
 * File:41cm-45 3rd Year Type naval gun outside the Yamato Museum during October 2008.jpg - Fine.
 * File:Model of battleship Kaga port view.jpg - Fine.
 * File:Japanese battleship Tosa.jpg - Fine.
 * File:Japanese Navy Aircraft Carrier Kaga 1928.jpg - Very blown out, but copyright-wise fine.
 * File:Japanese Navy Aircraft Carrier Kaga.jpg - Fine (a little grainy, but no problem there)
 * Support on prose and images, very good work everyone! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments - The body looks pretty good, but the lead is not written very well.
 * "The ships were larger versions of the preceding Nagato class, and mounted an additional 41-centimeter (16.1 in) twin-gun turret." The ships mounted turrets? Is that normal vernacular (as opposed to the turrets being mounted on the ships)?
 * How about "and carried..."? Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "The design for the class also served as a basis for the Amagi-class battlecruisers." The "also" implies you have already written something about the design was doing.
 * Removed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "took part in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the invasion of Rabaul in the Southwest Pacific in January 1942" As written, suggests both of those actions occurred in January 1942.
 * Added the date for Pearl Harbor. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I keep seeing this problem in ship articles (persisting still in HMS Warrior). "This was the genesis of the Eight-Eight Fleet Program" Avoid the ambiguous "this" in reference to previous subjects.
 * This one might need Sturm - I don't have Evans & Peattie handy. It looks as though the "this" in question refers to the 1907 Imperial Defense Policy. If that's correct, it would be best to state that explicitly. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I gotta say that I don't regard "this" as ambiguous as the entire previous sentence was about the rationale for the 8-8 fleet program. Nonetheless, I've added "policy" to the second sentence to clarify things. Thanks for looking it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know you don't. ;) It's not a dealbreaker really, but it's not ideal writing. ESL readers in particular have trouble with that construction. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty close to ready. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article, Laser brain. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Support
 * Prose-wise, copyedited so pls let me know if you disagree with anything. It's a bit difficult to write about 'might have been' things, so there's an understandable preponderance of "would have had" when describing design, etc -- the only thing I'd suggest here is perhaps varying this occasionally with "was/were to have" or some such.
 * Structure, coverage and referencing seem fine.
 * Image-wise, agree with Crisco that licensing looks okay except that I'd expect File:Japanese Navy Aircraft Carrier Kaga.jpg to have a US PD tag like the others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is a very solid article on this design. I have the following comments: Support Aside from the minor issue immediately above, my comments are addressed and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sentence's statement that these ships were "built as part of the "Eight-Eight" fleet" seems inaccurate given that neither was completed (and, from memory, the eight-eight fleet was not achieved) - 'built' is the problematic word here
 * Changed to "ordered". Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Diet authorized three more dreadnoughts in response the following year: Mutsu, Tosa and Kaga" - was it planned to build the 2nd and 3rd of these ships as an updated design at this time? It might also be worth noting here that Mutsu was a follow-on from Nagato.
 * I'll let Sturm address the specifics of the authorization, but I've added the bit about Mutsu. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The two Tosas were already a separate design. I think that Parsec's change clarifies things well enough.
 * Can the specific influence of the various factors in the paragraph starting "The IJN began reevaluating the Nagato design in light of lessons learned" be identified?
 * Explicated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What position did Captain Yuzuru Hiraga hold?
 * Expanded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest removing the para which starts with "By World War II, the guns used Type 91 armor-piercing, capped shells" as its not really all that relevant to this cancelled design
 * I always like to give gun performance data in a class article. If I remove it here I'll have to remove it for all the other guns that the design would have used. I did remove the "by WW2" bit as that's unnecessarily precise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did the Washington Naval Treaty really mandate "the cancellation of all naval ships being built"? I thought that smaller ships were OK (I could be totally wrong).
 * No, you're right, it was just a holiday on capital ship construction. Everything from cruisers on down was essentially unrestricted (incidentally, limitations on cruiser building were put into effect in 1930 with the London Naval Treaty). Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence which begins with "Kaga was originally planned to be scrapped" is a bit over-complex - I'd suggest splitting this into a couple of sentences
 * See how it reads now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The last para should note the date Kaga was sunk
 * Added. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can the publishing details to Lengerer, Hans (June 2010) be fleshed out? It's unclear what Contributions to the History of Imperial Japanese Warships (Special Paper I) is - is it a book? Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an internet-only journal that requires a subscription. I've added that template, but it doesn't list a publisher.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a URL? At present it's not clear how readers could actually access this publication. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd love to, but you have to email the editor and he'll send you the issue(s), once you've paid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you add details of how readers could do that? (eg, his personal website, or his email address if it's public) Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by the Dr.

 * Can you give some description of its physical attributes in the lead? I know the infobox has the facts, but to effectively summarize the article I feel it needs some of the basic information in prose in the lead.
 * I never put physical characteristics in the lede as I believe that that's not summarizing, but merely duplicating info presented in fuller detail in the description section.
 * Fair enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you write Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) instead of IJN in the first instance in the background section and then use IJN ?
 * I gave the abbreviation in the lede and used it first in the background section, only two paragraphs later. The reader shouldn't have any problem following the usage.
 * As I see you are using digits for numbers like 16 and 20, number above nine should be in digits too, ten and eleven.
 * I generally do so, but the exceptions involve the 2nd and 3rd bullets from WP:Numeral:
 * Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
 * Adjacent quantities that are not comparable should usually be in different formats: twelve 90-minute volumes or 12 ninety-minute volumes is more readable than 12 90-minute volumes or twelve ninety-minute volumes.
 * "The ships' secondary armament of twenty 50-caliber 14-centimeter guns would have been mounted in casemates, 12 on the upper sides of the hull and eight in the superstructure. The 3rd Year Type guns". -Can you link 3rd Year Type in the first instance here or say 14-centimeter 3rd Year Type guns as it had be wondering what 3rd Year Type was.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch, done. Appreciate you're taking the time to review this nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Excellent job.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Support This looks great; no grammar nitpicks or anything. One question though: since neither was technically scrapped, why does the infobox say "1 scrapped"? Maralia (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's the closest to what actually happened among the available options of scrapped, preserved, or lost.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Support once fixed Attack on Pearl Harbor is linked to twice. The second time it's via redirect. The second link should be unlinked. Redirs shouldn't be in there at all and we only need to link to something once. Consider as support once this is fixed. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Fixed, and thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.  Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the  template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ucucha (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.