Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of Japan


 * 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.

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Japan

 * Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)(Prof) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan]

An article concerning the constructed and planned battlecruisers of the Japanese Empire. This is the final article in my work on the Kongo class and Japanese battlecruisers. It's also my first-ever list, so I'm wanting to get a high-calibre review finished before I take it through the FLC process so as to hammer out all the bugs. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm conomming, but it's my first list too, so any comments related to the FLC criteria would be greatly appreciated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Couple of quick comments:
 * You've got "armour" in the boxes but "armored cruiser" in the prose - check for uniform spellings.
 * I'd suggest a citation for the one note - it might be common knowledge that Kaga was converted, but better to play it safe.
 * That's all for now, I'll give it a closer read tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * I can't tell whether eight-eight fleet should be capitalized or not, but if it is, then all three words should be capitalized. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Parsecboy about AmEng vs. BritEng ... "modernization", "armour", etc. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Cam wrote this in Canadian English, which is sort of a mix of AE and BE. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Canadian English is fine with me in other articles, but what's the connection between Canada and Japanese battlecruisers? Canada made critically important contributions in WWII of course, but not in that theater (sorry, theatre :). - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I always put a note on my desk to write in AmEng, but I always end up writing mostly in CAnEng. So I'll go through and see what I can fix. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate a quick check of my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Including all the work Dank put into copyediting. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Comments: Largely looks fine to me, as such I focused on minor style issues which might get brought up at FAC:
 * no dab links, no issues with ext links (no action required);
 * images lack alt text, which you might consider adding (suggestion only);
 * I think that per MOS "twentieth century" should be "20th century";
 * Oops, you're right. - Dank (push to talk) 05:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed this. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hammel is listed in the References, but doesn't seem to be specifically cited;
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cam, can you please check this again, as I'm not sure if it has been rectified? From what I can see Hammel is still in the References but is not specifically cited. I think that if you don't cite it specifically, you should put it in a Further reading section;
 * the page ranges in the citations should have endashes per WP:DASH;
 * Fixed several of these. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I found one more, so I fixed it myself as it is only a minor thing. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * for consistency of presentation style, "Garzke and Dulin, p. 84–85" should be "pp. 84–85";
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the year ranges in the titles in the References section should have endashes (e.g. Schom and Stille works);
 * Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * most of the ISBNs are presented with hyphens, but a couple are not (Gardiner and Lacroix). These should be consistent;
 * Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * do you know the publisher location details for the Jackson and Schom works?
 * in the Design B-65 class section, "...these nighttime strikes" ("nighttime" - is this correct? I'm not sure, sorry, but it just doesn't look right to me);
 * That's what Webster's NWD gives. - Dank (push to talk) 05:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No dramas, that is fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Kongo class section "attack on Pearl Harbour" (I think this should be "Pearl Harbor" - as it is a proper noun, i.e. place name, it would have to be spelt "Harbor" regardless of whether the article is written in British or Canadian English. I might be wrong, though).
 * I can't speak to that really, it's whatever Brits write. Brits write for instance "River Plate" where Americans and Argentines write "Rio de la Plata" (with or without the accent on the i), so we say "River Plate" in BritEng articles. - Dank (push to talk) 05:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Inserted: I was confused by all the "-ours". Cam is shooting for AmEng here.  I try not to have an opinion, in general, on British naming conventions; I'm confused enough by Wikipedia's American naming conventions. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure, so I had a bit of a hunt around the MOS. MOS states, "[p]laces should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article". Given that the article is spelt Pearl Harbor, I feel that it should be presented as such. Happy to discuss pros and cons of this approach, though, of course. Ultimately, its a minor point and I won't oppose over it. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * could a citation/reference be provided for Footnote 1? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Can you add a citation to "Similar to the German Imperial Navy (Kaiserliche Marine), the Japanese envisioned and designed battlecruisers that could operate alongside battleships in the line of battle to counter numerical superiority." Other than that, I can think of no other citation related issues.
 * Fixed (I believe). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to add in the launch dates to the list?
 * I'm not entirely sure. I could, but I think it'll seriously mess up the arrangement of the other columns in terms of how they fit. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than that, there are no other issues that I can see.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - only a few minor comments: Support
 * The citation error tool reports two errors (Stille, p. 8 - Multiple references contain the same content and stille8 - Multiple references are using the same name);
 * I'm a bit confused by what this means...Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially it means there may be an error with one (or two) of your named refs - ie you may have used the same name twice etc (fairly minor issue its true). The citation error tool can be accessed by clicking 'edit' at the top of the article, then the 'cite' drop down button, click 'Error check', select all three radio buttons and hit 'check', and a citation error report will be generated. I believe this tool may not be available unless you have certain preferences installed so if you don't have it I'll see if I can fix the problem myself. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2nd sentence in lead is a little repetatve: "The battlecruiser was an outgrowth of armored cruiser designs, which had proved highly successful against the Russian Baltic Fleet in the Battle of Tsushima, which ended the Russo-Japanese War." (two 'whichs'); and
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Overall, this is an excellent article and I intend to support once these issues are resolved. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All my points have been resolved so I'm happy to support now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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.