Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Yamato


 * 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.

closed as promoted by Woody (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Yamato
The second in the series concerning the Yamato battleships - detailing the lead ship of the class (and the only one to fire her massive broadside at enemy surface targets). Passed a thorough GA-Review on 19 January, and I believe it's ready for A-class. Cam (Chat) 21:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There are three dab links and a external link that need to be looked at, and if need be, corrected. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed. Cam (Chat) 06:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments This is a very solid article, but I'm not sure that it adequetly covers its topic, though the content is very good.
 * The article seems a bit short given the vast amounts which have been written about the ship and her (unremarkable) career. Some areas were coverage could be expanded are:
 * Results of her sea trials and initial training period - were any changes needed?
 * Not that I'm aware of. Cam (Chat) 21:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The astonishing decision to use Yamato as a troop transport in 1944: why was this considered a good idea given her fuel consumption and value as a warship?
 * They were hard to sink and had lots of space. I've added something to that effect in. Cam (Chat) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The abortive plan to use Yamato and Musashi to attack the Allied force off Biak which was canceled when the invasion force heading for the Marianas was detected (see: )
 * I'd already put that in the Musashi article, but forgot to transfer it to this article. My bad. Cam(Chat) 07:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The section on the Battle of Leyte Gulf could be greatly expanded given that this was the only time Yamato was used for something like her intended purpose
 * Unfortunately, not a lot happened that is recorded. We do know that she scored hits on three vessels, and it is also known that a spread of torpedoes&mdash;aimed at Haruna, approached Yamato very early in the battle.  She had to steam away from the battle to avoid getting hit, and was unable to rejoin.  I've reworded the section to reflect that. Cam (Chat) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yamato class battleship is linked three times in the first three paragraphs, including as a main link - I think that only the first link is needed
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did Yamato really 'accidently' open fire on Japanese planes in the Battle of the Philippine Sea? - this suggests that someone leaned on the fire button or an automated system went haywire. 'Mistakenly' might be a better word.
 * I rephrased it to clarify - the Japanese fleet thought that the planes were American, and opened up on a squadron of Zekes. Cam (Chat) 07:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where was 2nd Fleet when it was attacked on 21 November 1944?
 * East China Sea. Added clarification. Cam (Chat) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The section on 1944 states that the ship received her 'final AA suite' early that year, but later states that late in the year she received further 'antiaircraft upgrades' - as written, this is a bit confusing
 * I will try to clarify that. The older guns were simply replaced.  The number of guns didn't change. Cam (Chat) 07:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article could mention that Yamato was located after the war and her current condition. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try to find a source that mentions the exact location that I can reference within WP:RS. Cam (Chat) 07:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're still looking, Nova did a special on it a couple years ago, chronicling the search for and discovery of the ship. Not sure if that'd meet WP:RS, but I'd certainly consider it reliable. The companion website is here, the episode is "Sinking the Supership." – Joe N  utter  20:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support All comments addressed and the article meets the A-class criteria. I think that it should be expanded, if possible, before a FA nomination though. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Quite a few peacock words. Some examples: Following the disastrous defeat of …, … due in part to a stalwart defense … by elite Japanese fighter pilots…, …led by the famed Minoru Genda…, … with her formidable 18.1-inch heavy-guns…. Check for others and either change to more neutral wording or more closely attribute them, please.
 * Fixed the ones I could find. Cam (Chat) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the differentiation between adjacent numbers, as in six 6.1-inch (15 cm) guns, I'm not so sure that's the best thing for the upgraded AA suite: … and one hundred and sixty-two 1-inch (2.5 cm) antiaircraft guns, …. It would read a little better, at least, if the number were written as one hundred sixty-two (with no and in the middle).
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we need the future ranks of Yamato's commanding officers? Are they relevant in this article?
 * Are all of Yamato's captains notable enough to justify the all of the redlinks scattered throughout?
 * Oddly enough, yes. I googled it, searched the IJN Admiral page on the pedia, and there's no mention of any except Ito. Cam (Chat) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are, that's fine.
 * For the sentence beginning The explosion—over four miles high …, does the source say the explosion was four miles high? Surely they mean the smoke plume… ? (This should have a unit conversion, too.)
 * Fixed (it was the smoke). Cam (Chat) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The items listed in the "References" section should be in alphabetical order. Also, because some are formatted with cite book and others are manually formatted, there are discrepancies in the format, such as a full stop between location and publisher in the manual entries, and a colon in those formatted with the template. Ten of the fourteen are missing a publishing location, and at least one needs an ISBN, Steinberg's Island Hopping. By the way, is that, perhaps, supposed to be Island Fighting (ISBN 0809424886)?
 * Indeed it is. Thank-you for catching that. Cam (Chat) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What does Template:IJN add to this article since Yamato is not a link within it?
 * Fixed that as well. Cam (Chat) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm close to supporting, but am especially concerned about the peacock words. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to support with the proviso that the additional reference items be addressed. I share Nick's views on expansion (particularly in the "Design and construction" section) before attempting an FAC. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I echo the comments above that the reference issues should be addressed, and the expansions should be made prior to FAC. Got a few small things below:
 * The Battle of Sibuyan Sea photo is squeezing the next level header, which I believe is a no-no at FAC level.
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Skate fired a spread of four torpedoes at Yamato, with two striking on the starboard side near Turret #3.[16] Severe failure of the armoured belt flooded the upper magazine of the rear turret, and Yamato was forced to retire to Truk for emergency repairs' - where there any crew casualties?
 * Not that I am aware of. Cam (Chat) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Damage to the battleship, however, was light,[24] due in part to a defense of the base by experienced Japanese fighter pilots flying Kawanishi N1K "George" fighters; these fighters were led by Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor.' - What else helped prevent major damage to the ship?
 * Added. Cam (Chat) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Footnotes 10 and 12 seem like they would act better as seperate notes, the [nb1]], nb2 kind.
 * And Footnote 4 - Maybe it's just me, but footnoting two seperate books together as one footnote seems a little odd, and might come up at FAC. I know it might take a bit of work, but seperating them might be a better idea, even if you leave them together, ie [41][42] etc.
 * I've seen it used in other FACs in which it didn't come up. Cam (Chat) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're going to wikilink authors in the references, then please be consistent - I think there are a few more who can be linked. Skinny87 (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the authors stuff. Cam (Chat) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent article, all comments appear to have been dealt with, and I could not find any other problems. While it seems rather short, I suppose it was rarely actually used for combat, and thus there isn't much to say about her. – Joe N  utter  22:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. There are some additional topics I believe should be covered in the article, but I don't think that disqualifies the article from A-class or even FA-level status.  Great job on bringing the article to where it is now. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 4 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.