Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Musashi


 * 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.

Result was pass EyeSerene talk 12:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Musashi

 * Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)

The second of the massive (yet extraordinarily unused) Yamato battleships. Passed a GA-Review in January, has undergone minor tweaking since. I believe it meets ACC. Regards, Cam (Chat) 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments No problems were reported with external or disambig links, but the readability tool suggests there may be some long words in the article. That is of little concern to me in any case. Well Done. TomStar810 (Talk) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * References comments - (this version)
 * So someone copied some stuff in from Yamato without changing the citation style...:P I'll fix this tomorrow after classes if you don't get to it first... (I changed the style in Yamato myself because I added info from a different Reynolds book that was from 1968...it's your choice, but you might want to have the same style as Yamato...)
 * Refs 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22.
 * Ref 15 - can we just have the "tabular history" in the 'References' section? It took me a little bit to realize what you were referring to...(I'll do this tomorrow too if you don't get to it ;D)
 * Sources look good, links checked by Tom. Cheers, — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comments:
 * Refs #3 and 7 are referring to Johnston and MacAuley, right? If not, please change it back :)
 * They are. Cam (Chat) 22:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "In December 1942, following aircraft drills with Zuikaku, Musashi was declared operational." - what are "aircraft drills"?
 * Ref #12; the "ref name" is Thompson237...did you have a typo in the page number for the actual ref (as that is 234)?
 * Ref #19 18: not in Bibliography. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. I have replaced that one with a ref that  have in the article. My bad. Cam (Chat) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, with one last comment - nitpick. The last sentence of prose ("18 American aircraft were lost in the attack.") needs a ref. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, just two issues.
 * "Following Japan's disastrous defeat in the battle—during which some 450 aircraft and two fast carriers were lost—the Second Fleet returned to Japan." I've always heard it as three lost: one by Aircraft attack, and two by submarine around the time of the battle.
 * Link "American invasion of Leyte" to Battle of Leyte, not Battle of Leyte Gulf. I'd also recommend mentioning in that last paragraph that the section of the Battle of Leyte Gulf was the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea.


 * Otherwise looks good, well-referenced and interesting to read. – Joe N  utter  02:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments This is a good article, but it needs a bit of tidying up:
 * Can 'formally commissioned' be replaced with just 'commissioned'?
 * sure thing. Cam (Chat) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Throughout 1943, Musashi transferred continuously between the naval bases at Truk Lagoon, Kure and Brunei in response to American airstrikes on Japanese island bases" seems to be an overstatement as it implies that she was constantly at sea, when in fact it appears that she spent most of the year in port
 * changed to "frequently". Is that any better? Cam (Chat) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'Design and Construction' section seems to imply that it was the American consulate at Nagasaki which first detected the ship in late 1942 ("The deceptions were so successful that the American Consulate—located across the bay from Musashi's construction site—was unaware of her existence until late 1942"); this obviously isn't right.
 * Ah. Whoops, didn't catch that before.  Fixed and clarified. Cam (Chat) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Did Yamamoto's remains ever leave his cabin on the ship?
 * They did indeed. I thought I'd mentioned that but I'll add it in. Cam (Chat) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From memory, Musashi was to attack the US transports off Biak, and not provide extra AA protection (which would have been little use considering that a large American force was ashore on the island) Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All fixed. Cam (Chat) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. I personally wouldn't put the years in the section headings, but no big deal. Good job. Cla68 (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support My above concerns are now addressed. Areas you might wish to consider en-route to FA are:
 * Expanding the article wherever possible
 * Expanding upon the ship's sinking - this was the only time she saw any kind of combat
 * Adding material on the impact of the ship's loss on the Battle of Leyte Gulf and what became of her crew
 * I personally don't think that WW2DB meets the criteria at WP:EL as it's self-published without much quality control, and you may wish to remove it. You've also got two links to the ship's commons page.
 * Let me know if you'd like any photos of the massive model of Yamato in Kure; I've got photos of it from most angles and these could be useful for illustrating aspects of the design. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 24 February 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.