Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Asahi


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Asahi

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Asahi was a Japanese pre-dreadnought battleship built in the UK because Japan lacked the ability to build battleships herself and was paid for by the Chinese indemnity from the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95. She participated in every major battle of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05, but did nothing of note during World War I. She did support the Japanese intervention in Siberia during the Russian Civil War and was disarmed in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Unlike most of the other Japanese pre-dreadnoughts she was not scrapped or sunk as a target, but converted into a submarine salvage and rescue ship. She was later converted into a repair ship and deployed to Shangai during the 2nd Sino-Japanese War. Asahi was transferred to Singapore in 1942 to repair forward-deployed Japanese ships and was torpedoed and sunk by an American submarine when she was ordered home at the end of the year. I've just updated and expanded the article so I believe that it meets the A-class criteria. This is bound for FAC afterwards, so I'd appreciate it if reviewers could keep that in mind when they make their comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Concerning "the Battles of the Yellow Sea and Tsushima", people haven't settled on a standard meaning or way to say this. As always, I'd prefer an approach that tends to work for everyone. Of the readers who don't already know and don't click to find out, some will understand what you mean, others will take this to mean that there were (plural) battles in the Yellow Sea and also a battle at Tsushima, and others will think that "battles" signifies a multi-part engagement (a la "Battles of Lexington and Concord"). I'd like to suggest "the two biggest naval battles, Yellow Sea and Tsushima", or "The Yellow Sea" if you prefer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is clearer, but seems awkward to me. Is it just too redundant to say that she participated in the Battle of the Yellow Sea and the Battle of Tsushima? It's just as clear and reads better to me, even with the close repetition of "Battle".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it's better; I didn't suggest it because I thought you didn't like it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (snicker) The close repetition of "Battle" is less than ideal, IMO, but it reads better than your suggested alternative. I still prefer the original version in terms of prose, but I do agree that it's a bit ambiguous and could stand to be clarified. Don't ever worry about my opinion regarding your corrections; some days I can tell a hawk from a handsaw, others not so much. I value your counsel too much to want anything less than your best. My sensibilities are not so tender that I can't accept anyone else's ideas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * External links check out (no action req'd).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
 * Hackett & Kingsepp (Multiple references contain the same content)
 * hk (Multiple references are using the same name)
 * Image appears to be PD (although I wonder if you need to include source information etc), caption looks ok.
 * The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * A couple of duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
 * battleships
 * torpedo boat
 * muzzle velocity
 * barbettes
 * John Brown & Company
 * 1st Fleet
 * Royal Navy
 * main battery
 * "She was sunk en route by the American submarine USS Seawolf with very little loss of life..." consider instead: "She was sunk en route by the American submarine USS Seawolf; however, most of her crew survived..." or something similar.
 * A little repetitive here: "...turned again to the United Kingdom for the four remaining battleships of the programme.[3] Asahi, the fifth battleship of the naval programme...", perhaps lose one instance of "programme"?
 * Repetition here: "Tōgō had expected the surprise night attack by his destroyers to be much more successful than it actually was and expected..." (expected twice in same sentence)
 * "Tōgō chose to attack the Russian coastal defences with his main armament and engage the Russian ships with his secondary guns." Consider more simply: "Tōgō chose to attack the Russian coastal defences with his main armament and engage the ships with his secondary guns."
 * I might be missing something here but the lead and infobox says the ship was sunk by USS Seawolf but the text of the article says it was sunk by USS Salmon. Think it should be Salmon from one of the sources.
 * Otherwise this looks pretty good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All done. Thanks for the valuable suggestions; see how my changes read to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes those changes look good to me, adding my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:
 * "In addition the ships were also fitted with 24-power magnification telescopic gunsights." - I think in this context you want "the ship was also fitted", as the article is about this battleship, not the wider navy.
 * But doesn't the subordinate clause "like all the other Japanese battleships of the time" in the previous sentence mean that this sentence should still be referring to collective ships?
 * "the ship began conversion at Kure as a repair ship" - "to a repair ship"?
 * ""cwt" is the abbreviation for hundredweight, 12 cwt referring to the weight of the gun." - fn1; should this be "Cwt", as it's beginning the sentence? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catches on the others and thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * The lead is a bit "wall-o-text"-ish, any way we can split it in half? Perhaps divide it at the end of her service as a BB?
 * Is there a line-drawing available from Brassey's or another contemporary naval journal?
 * Or anything showing her post-reconstruction appearance?
 * Nothing that was not copyrighted.
 * Speaking of images, why isn't File:Japanese battleship Asahi.jpg used in the article? It seems to be a much better lead image, since it's higher resolution and a cleaner photo.
 * Good idea.
 * Why no link to Combined Fleet? And according to that article, the fleet was formed in 1894 and reformed before the Russo-Japanese War, not formed initially then.
 * Added.
 * Should there be a bit more context in the Russo-Japanese war section? Specifically, it seems as though Tsushima comes out of nowhere - the reader won't know why in the heck the Baltic Fleet is all the way in the Sea of Japan, for instance.
 * Added a sentence, see if it satisfies.
 * Looks good to me.
 * First she was to be converted into a submarine depot ship, but she actually became a submarine salvage ship?
 * First she became a depot ship immediately after she was disarmed, etc., then was converted into a salvage/rescue ship.
 * I think you need a topic sentence for that paragraph. It's rather jarring to read that she was reclassified as a submarine depot ship and then suddenly begins conversion into a submarine salvage ship. Something along the lines of "The navy (or whoever made the decision) decided to convert Asahi into a submarine salvage ship in 1925; the work was completed in two phases" would do the trick.
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "She was transferred to Camranh Bay, French Indochina on 15 November and transported the 11th Base Unit from Kure to Camranh Bay 19 November – 7 December 1941" - this line might be a little unclear to readers, who might assume that Asahi actually steamed to Camranh on the 15th (and then, what, doubled back to pick up the 11th Base Unit?), as opposed to have the orders cut on the 15th. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarified this. See what you think. Thanks for looking this over and catching these weaknesses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is much clearer now - I had mistakenly paired the 15 November date with the 1941 date later in the sentence. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Another question: who rescued the survivors of the ship? Was she being escorted (I assume so, since the vast majority of her crew was rescued)? Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea as my sources don't say. I do know that she was in company with the light cruiser Yubari because the same submarine fired on both ships. So I suppose Yubari and their escorts rescued the survivors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But please add that Yubari and at least the number and type of escorts (if known of course) to that line, since otherwise it reads as if Asahi was steaming independently. Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I misread Rohwer, the sub's skipper misidentified Asahi as Yubari. He did sink a medium-sized freighter as well Asahi in his attack, but Combinedfleet.com gives the escort as a single subchaser. I doubt that it could have accommodated Asahi's crew, so I imagine that some of the other merchant ships in the convoy must have stopped to pluck the survivors from the sea. But I don't know any of that; it's all pure supposition on my part. I'll add the escort if you think it's worthwhile, but not anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. It might be best to clarify that she sailed as part of a convoy instead of independently - I'll leave it up to you as to how much detail about the convoy specifics to include. Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The combinedfleet.com page on CH-9 says that she rescued all of the survivors so it seems as though there actually wasn't a convoy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like we finally got to the bottom of it. Moving to support now. Parsecboy (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.