Talk:Fuji-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 00:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "the day after the start of the war" - how about "on the second day of the war" which is shorter and a bit clearer
  • Indeed it is.
• Can you please provide a brief summary of what the ' Jeune Ecole naval philosophy' involved? (particularly in relation to these battleships)
  • How does it read now?
• "Obtaining the budget for construction was a struggle for the Japanese government" - I'd suggest changing this to 'Obtaining funding for the battleships was a struggle for the Japanese government' or similar (you might also want to note the role of the Diet here)
  • That is better phrasing although I think that most people are familiar with Diets/Parliaments/Congresses that retain the power of the purse separate from the executive branch.
• Do we know why the Emperor Meiji placed such an emphasis on acquiring these ships? (was he keen on them, or was he trying to resolve the political standoff?)
  • No, unfortunately I don't have access to Hoare and had to rely on the original editor's work. So I don't know why the Emperor specifically wanted the ships.
• "They improved on the original Royal Sovereign design" - who's the 'they' here?
  • Clarified.
• Do we know why the two ships or this class were designed by different people? This seems really unusual.
  • It is indeed unusual, but the two must have collaborated since the ships were virtually twins. Unfortunately there are no details available. Brook used the surviving Armstrong Whitworth documents, but even they don't say anything specific about this issue.
• Can anything be said about the ships' delivery to Japan (including when they first arrived in the country) and service before the Russo-Japanese War? Seeing as these were the first Japanese BBs, it would be interesting to know how their crews were trained (presumably by the Royal Navy in the UK?) and how they were integrated into the fleet as well.
  • Annoyingly, neither Howarth or Evans & Peattie mention anything about a training mission to the UK for these ships. There must have been something, although the Japanese had been operating European-built warships for about a decade before this and possibly had enough trained manpower for them. I'll see if I can dig something up on arrival dates and activities in Japan although I'm not that hopeful as the Japanese were pretty secretive about their navy.
• The article includes both DD-MM and MM-DD dating - please standarise on one or the other
  • Done
• "Fuji was not hit during the Battle of the Yellow Sea in August 1904" - this sentence should first specify that she was involved in this battle (can anything else be said about her role in the engagement?)
  • Not much, I don't have even an ammo expended report for her.
• "After the ammunition fire was put out" - this isn't noted previously
  • Added.
• You should note that Fuji was damaged in the Attack on Yokosuka shortly before the end of WW2.
  • I had no idea that it was damaged, but I've added a bit more about that and its consequences.
• Seeing as these were the first Japanese BBs, can anything be said about their public reception and their influence on the IJN's subsequent BBs?
  • No, none of my sources go into any detail. It would be OR to conclude that the subsequent orders for BBs from British yards had at least something to do with satisfaction with the Fujis. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    • OK. From my own experience, English-language sources for Japanese military history can be maddeningly elusive, so that (and the other points above) are fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Excellent work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)