Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Design A-150 battleship


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Design A-150 battleship

 * Nominator(s): — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  

A Japanese Second World War design that called for a 20-inch(!) main battery. However, the demands of the war, especially after the major loss in the Battle of Midway, forced the ships to be canceled. Thanks for your reviews, everyone. Cheers, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  06:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A1 review for Citation Style. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in Bibliography: Breyer (1973), p. 330 Acted upon 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some cites end in a full stop, some don't. Matter of Style 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple authors inconsistent: Bibliography is Author A; Author B.  Citation is Author A and Author B. Matter of Style 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Date style inconsistent, mix of D Month YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD "DiGiulian, Tony (9 October 2006). "51 cm/45 (20.1") "A" Type 98 (?)". Navweaps. Retrieved 2009-06-08." 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) - added.
 * (2 and 3) - I've done this style of referencing in six of my eight other FAs...are you sure it is necessary?
 * (4) - good catch, changed. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If (2 and 3) is consistent over your other Battleship FAs, I'll take that as a stylistic choice, and deem it consistent. As long as all your short cites end without a full stop :) ! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. :-) Many thanks, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments This is a very solid article, but I think that it might need a little more work:
 * Given that the Yamato class are often cited as either under-achievers or just a bad idea, has this design also received criticism?
 * I couldn't tell you. The ships have very little to no coverage in any English sources I got ahold of. Conway's gives it a passing mention in the Yamato class battleship section, while Garzke and Dulin only give eight paragraphs. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we know who was in charge of planning these ships? The article attributes various conclusions and a quote to them, but who they were is never specified. Eg, the statement that "the Japanese" were confident about the feasibility of a 20.1" gun is imprecise an who was it that "felt" that the ships were "too large and too expensive"?
 * Nothing is stated. I'd guess Keiji Fukuda and/or Yuzuru Hiraga, as they were the lead people on the Yamatos, but i can't say for sure. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When did work start on planning these ships?
 * Good thought, fixed. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As the Japanese government deliberatly destroyed large amounts of records at the end of the war, does your source specifically attribute the loss of the plans to "confusion"?
 * Yes, but I've refactored the statement nonetheless. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When did the Japanese Government cancel all further work on BBs?
 * "early in 1941". I believe I have addressed this. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what value the see also links add, and no context is provided for including these. A source tying the development of these super-super battleships together would be fantastic
 * I've moved everything into a template. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The full citation details for the Muir reference could be moved to the biography section Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done :) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support comments now addressed, great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the length of these guns as expressed in calibers? And a link to the definition of caliber is needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * In the intro, the line all work on Design A-150 and the Design B-65 cruisers was halted doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps work on the Design A-150 battleships and the Design B-65 cruisers. Also, it also doesn't explain what the B-65s were; maybe adding a note that tells the reader something about the cruisers so they don't have to read the B-65 article. Alternatively, you could just as easily remove the mention of the cruisers and not lose much from the intro.
 * In a couple places, you've got metric tons and in others, tonnes. They're equivalent, but since this article appears to be written in American English, it's probably best to standardize them as metric tons.
 * It's probably better to spell out what "AA" is in the armament section.
 * For the "See also" section, it might be helpful to add a brief explanation of what each of the four are, and why they're being linked. Especially for the H39 and H44 classes, as someone who isn't already familiar with what they were will probably be confused. See WP:SEEALSO for a better explanation :)
 * That's it from me. Nice work on a pretty obscure ship design, Ed :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * These should all be fixed. Thanks for the review and complement! It was hard to write this one. Conway's gives it only a passing mention in the section on the Yamatos, and Garzke and Dulin only have eight paragraphs on it. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * It's a great article that meets almost all of the criteria, however I do have two issues:
 * "Initial design studies were drawn up after the completion of plans for the Yamato class (1938–39); they focused upon a ship with a displacement nearer to that of the Yamato's." I think "drawn up" needs to be repalced with "undertaken", plans are drawn up but design studies aren't, at least IMO. "upon" can just be replaced with on.
 * There is one question the article doesn't answer: why were they built planned? I think you need a section on development or whatever.--Patton123 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good first point, but I don't understand the second. The ships were never built! :-) Does the article not make this clear enough? — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgive my incopetence! I read the article and realised that but for some reason I still wrote that! Anyway I'm talking about a section such as Montana class battleship and Iowa class battleship, which details the reasons why they were planned and how they were going to be used.--Patton123 (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha yeah, what the heck. :P I see what you mean now, but this is the best I can do ("As the Japanese expected that the Americans would be able to obtain the true characteristics of that class (namely the principal armament of 460 mm), the use of 510 mm guns was vital to keep with Japan's policy of individual ships' superiority over their American counterparts; the A-150s were meant to counter the United States' reply to the Yamatos.") — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  07:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. No major reading errors and appears to be well-cited. Good work on such a little-known subject. – Joe   N  01:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Images are lacking the alt text. Is this not required for A-Class? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not required per say, but it's commonly asked for. :-) Added. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  20:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: just check your spelling, in one place the word "tonness" appears, I think this should be "tonnes". — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.