Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō


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

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō

 * Nominator(s): 

Hiyo's first airstrike was a failure and her second and last was a disaster. The ship had a peculiar history as she rarely conducted operations with her aircraft aboard as the IJN adopted a policy of flying carrier air groups from land-bases to minimize the risk to its carriers in 1943–44. She missed the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands because of an generator fire and survived one torpedo attack before being sunk by another during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. As usual, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unlinked or unexplained jargon before I sent it to FAC. I've massively expanded this article since it passed GAN 7(!) years ago and believe that it meets the A-class criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:Lingzhi, could you please indicate your support or otherwise. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it Palomar or Polmar; is it Tully or Tully & Casse? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it Hata, Shores & Izawa or Hata, Izawa & Shores? Use of sfn and cite book with ref, despite how much you may dislike them, would prevent these errors and save review time...
 * If you're looking for AmerEng, should it have a Use British English somewhere? Plus I did see "authorized". Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching these. I've always believed that making the brain work harder is critical to keeping it in shape ;-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Support: looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * if possible, I'd suggest adding another image further down the page somewhere
 * Added one and moved an existing one further down the page.
 * "she was designed to be converted to an aircraft carrier" --> "she was designed to be converted to an aircraft carrier in the event of war"?
 * "vapor" --> "vapour"
 * "armor" --> "armour"
 * "1909-1945": should have an endash
 * I couldn't see the way number in the body of the article
 * Slipway in the first para of the Construction and career section.
 * seems inconsistent: "Early warning was provided by two Type 2, Mark 2, Model 1 early-warning radars" v. "1 × Type 2, Mark 2, Model 1 air search radar" (infobox)
 * Built with one, another was added later in the year.
 * "At this time, the 652 Naval Air Group consisted 81 Zeros..." --> "At this time, the 652 Naval Air Group consisted of 81 Zeros..."
 * "a large explosion occurred when leaking gasoline vapor ignited and it knocked out all power on the ship" --> " a large explosion occurred when leaking gasoline vapor ignited and it knocked out all power on the ship"?
 * in the Further reading section, "1922-1946" should have an endash
 * "File:Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyo.jpg": source link doesn't seem to be working, or seems to redirect to the Yahoo Small Business site?
 * Definitely a dead link, but the generous Japanese copyright law means that the source is basically irrelevant since it could only have been taken during the war.

Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Nikki, this one looks like it is almost ready for closing. Would you mind taking a look at the images? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Her aircraft were disembarked several times and used from land bases in several battles in the South West Pacific." 2 x "several. Delete the second?
 * "Hiyō 's flight deck was 210.3 metres (690 ft 0 in) long and had a maximum width of 27.3 metres (89 ft 7 in)." Do we have a minimum width?
 * Don't think so, but even if I did, I'd save that for the class article.
 * "The air group was intended to consist of 12 Mitsubishi A5M "Claude" fighters, plus four in storage, 18 Aichi D3A "Val" dive bombers, plus two in reserve". What is the difference between "in storage" and "in reserve"?
 * None.
 * "Zero fighters and three in storage for the A5Ms by the time the ship commissioned in 1942". "was commissioned"?
 * I've gone with it, but I really don't see the need for a helping verb.
 * The second paragraph of "Construction and career" seems long to me.
 * Moved the last two sentences to the next para.
 * "The ship was under repair at Yokosuka until 15 September, which included additional 2.5 cm Type 96 AA guns and Sumikawa was relieved by Captain Tamotsu Furukawa on 1 September." I would be inclined to split this sentence, but that is highly optional. More relevant - "which included installing additional..."?
 * Good catch.
 * "Her air group rejoined her on 2 March, albeit without aircraft." Am I missing something here? Just what rejoined?
 * Rephrased
 * "The new base was closer to the oil wells in Borneo on which the Navy relied and also..." It may seem obvious, but consider "on which the Navy relied for fuel" or similar.
 * Good idea.
 * "The carriers began launching their first air strike of 26 bomb-carrying A6M2 Zeros, 7 B6Ns and 16 A6M5 Zeros as escort around 09:30." "as escorts" or "as an escort".
 * Thanks for the thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Comments Support Just a few minor comments from me...
 * In the infobox:
 * The deck armour is not supported by any statement in the main narrative and is therefore unsourced;
 * Don't know how that one slipped through.
 * I'm probably getting confused by the "as built" in the General characteristics section of the infobox, but by my count of the main narrative in the "Flight deck arrangements" section:
 * The ship was designed to accommodate up to 54 aircraft, only reduced to 53 when the Zeros replaced the Claudes;
 * The minimum number was 42 aircraft (21xZeros, 12xD3A & 9xB5N).
 * I've dropped the lower number as the size of the hangar never changed, only the size of the aircraft that could be fit within.

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Section "Construction and career", 3rd para. If I understand correctly, the ship had 21xZeros in October (figure from section "Flight deck arrangements"). One crash landed, three transferred to the sister ship, leaving 17, but you state that 16 remained when they were flown to Rabaul. Then you state that "18 Zeros from Hiyō..." - did they return to the ship? The earlier section also states 12xD3As on board, but this section states that one transferred to the sister ship and 17xD3As flew to Rabaul.
 * I'd overly compressed the changes in the air group so it should be a little clearer now. Rephrased things to clarify that the fighters belonged to Hiyo, not that they'd flown from her.
 * Same section, 4th and 5th paras. Similar ambiguity with numbers of Zeros. The 4th para states "24 Zeros from Hiyō..." with one Zero shot down, though not clear whether it was one of Hiyō's, then the 5th para states "...together with Hiyō's 21 fighters...". Maybe if you amended this to say "together with 21 fighters from Hiyō" it would eliminate the implication that Hiyō's total compliment of fighters numbered 21?
 * The initial complement of Zeros is stated to be 27, so I don't see a problem here as it seems pretty obvious that not all of her fighters would not necessarily be committed to a single mission.
 * I think "Hiyō's 21 fighters" can be interpreted to mean that that was the total compliment of fighters, but I'm probably being way too obsessive, and anyway it's an insignificant quibble on my part.
 * Same section, 6th para, Now the flagship of the Second Carrier Division under Rear Admiral Munetaka Sakamaki, Hiyō and Junyō departed Yokosuka on 7 June en route for Truk. Maybe "Now the flagship of the Second Carrier Division under Rear Admiral Munetaka Sakamaki, Hiyō departed Yokosuka with Junyō on 7 June en route for Truk." would make it absolutely clear which ship became the flagship?
 * Section "Battle of the Philippine Sea", 2nd para, A pair of Zeros and six D4Ys bound for Rota spotted the carriers Wasp and Bunker Hill en route and failed to inflict any damage on them... -> "A pair of Zeros and six D4Ys bound for Rota spotted the carriers Wasp and Bunker Hill en route, but failed to inflict any damage on them..."?
 * Thanks for noticing the stuff about the changes to the air group. See how my changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * "The Americans failed to locate Ozawa's ships that day and the Japanese turned south to maintain a constant distance between them and the American carriers as Ozawa had decided on launching his air strikes early the following morning.": Too much for one sentence I think, with different time frames and the shift in the frame of reference.
 * I struggled a bit on how to rephrase it and came up with: "The Americans, however, failed to detect the Japanese ships that day. Ozawa decided to launch his air strikes early the following morning so the Japanese turned south to maintain a constant distance between them and the American carriers." What do you think?
 * Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dan. Always appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Hiyo.jpg: is anything more known about the original source? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sadly, no. I even tried a Tineye search which didn't locate anything with decent sourcing. And nothing in any of my books on Japanese ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, not much to be done then. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.