Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Japanese World War II destroyers

Japanese World War II destroyers
I authored this article as one of a series to outline the development of these ships and to draw together the various class articles; it's not intended to include detailed info better sited elsewhere. Initial ratings varied between "start", "C" and "B" and, in an attempt to meet the comments, the article has expanded. There are disagreements on ratings and presentation. The peer review would involve a wider audience and, hopefully, lead to a consensus on expectations. Also, new sources and advice would be welcomed. Folks at 137 (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

LordAmeth

 * Going through the article, I notice a lot of small mistakes in capitalization, spelling, and translation. I've tried to catch and fix as many as I could, but I would suggest keeping an eye out for these kinds of mistakes.
 * "Allies" or "Allied" should always be capitalized when referring to "the Allies", i.e. US, UK, USSR.
 * IJN should always have "the" before it when it is used as a noun. For example "The IJN suffered one problem..."; when used as a descriptor, as in "IJN destroyers" or "IJN officers", the "the" is not necessary, of course, based on context.
 * Macrons. Destroyers Yūgumo and Ōshio should never be written as "Yugumo" and "Oshio". I'm not sure how many others I missed.
 * Translation. I fixed a number of these; for example, Matsu is written as 松 and means "pine tree", not "bamboo", which is written 竹 and pronounced take. Shiratsuyu, meaning "White Dew", is written as 白露. It might be a good idea to take the time to doublecheck the kanji and translation for all of these.
 * Also, I feel that the opening paragraph is a little too "military history", that is, a bit too technical. It should introduce the topic in simple, layman's terms, and move on to details (such as talk about the Type 93 torpedo, which might mean something to military history buffs, but is a bit too technical to me) in the following paragraph, or later. If possible, it might also be good to somehow phrase the opening sentence such that the topic of the article can be put in bold, as it is in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles.
 * All of that said, this is a fantastic article, and reflects tons of hard work. It's well on its way, I think, to being a Good or even Featured Article. Good work! LordAmeth (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think most of the above points have been resolved by me or others. The first three bullet points are done, the opening para has been tweaked and filled out (although style is always subjective). A few points arise, however. I'm always uncertain about the use of letter variations (such as macrons) that aren't "native" to English and I'd understood that these were to be avoided - as in major reference works such as "Whitley". I'm completely ignorant about Japanese characters, the ones in the article were copied from other wiki articles or elsewhere - I must rely on the educated. Folks at 137 (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With the macrons and such, it's really just a matter of your approach, or your POV, I suppose. From the point of view of English-language American/Western history, general (world) WWII history, military history or whathaveyou, yeah, I'm sure that a book like Whitley's, a military history book rather than being a Japanese history book, would ignore the subtleties of correctly representing Japanese words in English. And that's fine for where he's coming from. But check out any book on the subject written by a historian of Japan, rather than a (US/Global/non-Japan-specialty) military historian, and you'll find that they'll put more effort into representing the words accurately. Just like how "pinata" is not a word (rather than piñata), so too is Oshio rather than Ōshio an incorrect reflection of the spelling of the word in the original language. In any case, I'd be happy to look over the macrons, the kanji, and translations for you. No need to worry about it. LordAmeth (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarifications. I'm still uncertain about use of macrons as I think that it's "alien" to English language presentation and distances the text from its audience; which is odd as I don't feel the same about the use French or German special characters. It's not a cause for difference, however. Pleaase have a look at my comments, below, on name translations. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cla68

 * Great start on the article, but shouldn't it be titled, "Imperial Japanese Navy World War II destroyers"? I'll try to provide more comments soon Cla68 (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article needs more references. Some books that should be available at the local library or used online for cheap are:
 * Dull, Paul S. (1978) A Battle History of The Imperial Japanese Navy ISBN 0-85059-295-X
 * Evans, David C & Peattie, Mark R. (1997) Kaigun: strategy, tactics, and technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887–1941 Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland ISBN 0-87021-192-7
 * Evans, David C & Peattie, Mark R. (1997) Kaigun: strategy, tactics, and technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887–1941 Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland ISBN 0-87021-192-7


 * An "operational history" section or something like that should list the contributions by the destroyers throughout Japan's Pacific War campaigns, such as acting as plane guard destroyers for the kido butai (aircraft carrier task forces), making up the Tokyo Express, failing to adequately guard Japan's strategic sealanes for various reasons, torpedo tactics in various surface battles with Allied ships, etc. Cla68 (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the name is correct: it is about destroyers of a particular period and all Japanese warships of that time would've been of the IJN. The name also conforms to previous usage and standards. I've "cherry-picked" the mentioned actions - perhaps that needs to be stated - as this sort of article can't be comprehensive. I selected purely destroyer actions, particularly where they demonstrate the tactical strengths and weaknesses of Japanese usage. I've added a mention of the convoy escort issue, but it could be emphasised more. I'll keep a lookout for the books you mention, but my family already mutters at the width and weight of bookshelves! Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand running out of space for more books, I have the same problem. It's just that each book gives a different perspective on the subject.  Hara's book, for example, tells about how he wrote and proposed a new doctrine for torpedo attacks by destroyers, and about how it was accepted and had a significant impact on Japanese destroyer torpedo tactics during WWII.  He also explains how IJN officers who specialized in destroyer operations were generally shut-out of top leadership positions in favor of "battleship" officers.  Cla68 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

djwilms

 * I wonder whether you could consider providing an English translation in brackets after the names of the Japanese destroyers you mention in the table towards the end of the article. You include a tantalising sentence about how they were named after weather phenomena, and it would be nice if you can follow through on this.  It would help to personalize them for readers who don't read Japanese.  John Keegan did this very effectively in his book The Price of Admiralty for the Japanese ships engaged at the Battle of Midway.

Djwilms (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've thrown in the kanji and translation. LordAmeth (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. That was quick work!  I have just scrolled through them with great interest.  Now I suppose I shall have to return the compliment with the names of all the Chinese ships I mention in my articles on the Sino-French War ...


 * Djwilms (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The translations are interesting and add colour to the subject, I already attempted to include info on class names. I'm uncertain, however, whether it's just adding "clutter" to add translations to what is just a subset. I would argue that these should be added to comprehensive lists such as List of ships of the Japanese Navy and/or List of Japanese Navy ships and war vessels in World War II. Links would then be added to this article. The point of the table was as a quick list of survivors, rather than scatter the names around the classes. Not a matter to quarrel over, more a matter of opinion. Should we be adding translations every time we use a Japanese (or Chinese, etc) name? There maybe scope for a general article on warship names - now there's a project!!! Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Even as I was adding the kanji & translations, I was noticing how many lists of ships are scattered across different articles (not a bad thing, just the way it is), and wondering why I should be adding this information here and not elsewhere (as well/instead). Maybe I'll play around with it a bit more; remove the translations here, as you're right to say it's not the best place for it, just a quick list of survivors, not a comprehensive list of ships by any means, and add the kanji & translations elsewhere... LordAmeth (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)