Talk:Japanese destroyers of World War II

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese destroyers of World War II article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Maritime / Asian / Japanese / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Asian military history task force
	Japanese military history task force
	World War II task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Japan: Military history High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 21:21, November 22, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

== Problems I had. =/ ==

This is not B-class because...

...the references.
- (a) there are not enough...
- (b) and there are too many from one source.
  - Try Google Books (under "limited and full preview") and Global Security for extra references.
The lead is too short per WP:LEAD. Just summarize your article, and as long as the info appears down below, in-line citations are not needed for it.

Fix these, and the article meets the B-class requirements. ..my apoligies for the "list" reasoning, as that was totally wrong. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random thought: to make it cleaner, cite Whitney as <ref>Whitney, (page#)</ref>. Then put the full book citation in a separate section. (See Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Works for a little more) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, the only problem that I had with the article was that the Lead was too short. If the article is thorough enough aside from the lead, it shouldn't be a problem. Oh, on second thought, the article could use some images, so it would fail B-5. I thought that the references were thorough enough personally. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a photo in the article and passes B5. Were you actually reading the article? --Brad (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's odd, the pictures show up in my browser at school, but not my browser at home. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the wpships POV is that it makes a C but barely. Milhist does not use C-class yet. Your lead section is weak and each paragraph should have at least one reference cited. I'm liberal about assessments but this article is not B-class just yet. You've a lot of one or two line paragraphs that should be combined or expanded. With the amount of small paragraphs I can't see how the article meets the #2 requirement at this stage. I did change our importance rating from High to Top but that has no bearing on article quality. --Brad (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all round for the v constructive comments. It does show up, however, that there are differing peceptions at play. I'll attempt to address all reservations, but I'm surprised at "there are too many {citations} from one source" - if the source is good enough and comprehensive (and Whitney seems so), then is there a problem? I do think that more pics are needed, partic of the earlier types - if anyone has a source .... Relieved about the list comment! Folks at 137 (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by that is that every source is not entirely comprehensive - while one will go into more detail about service history (e.g. [{DANFS]], though danfs does not apply for this article), another will place extra emphasis on the technical and design aspects (e.g. all of Norman Friedman's books). ...and again, my apologies for the "list" comment... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress so far

Most of the above points have, I hope, been addressed. The intro has been expanded. (I'll leave a reviewer to remove it, if appropriate.) "Citation needed" tags have been replaced by citations and their presentation has been rationalised as suggested. Suitable, good quality pics are hard to come by, but I will lower my standard, if necessary. I'm less convinced by the argument to merge small paras. The wiki guides to layout and writing better articles discourage short and single sentence paras, but don't rule them out. The purpose in the "Classes" section is to separate each description into two or three parts - summary, description and usage/ fate - although some are capable of expansion. What I would prefer not to do is to create single para sections of solid blocks of text - this is advised against in the guidelines. I await the boadsides! Folks at 137 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try WP:MHR#PEER? This will get you plenty of comments to get this really good! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. First, ust a few more tweaks that have been suggested. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I found it pretty comprehensive. If somebody's got a copy of Kaigun or Parillo, or EZ access to it, will you check the cites using them? I've read that somewhere, & I think that's where it is, but I couldn't say for certain, & I don't have either. If not, have a peek at Willmott's Barrier & the Javelin (my fallback...). And, to repeat a cmt at WPShips, is there a convention on capitalization of name translations? I'm split between not capitalizing, 'cause they're not proper nouns in Eng, & capitalizing, 'cause they're translations of names. Thoughts? Also, do change it to reflect whatever decision is arrived at (if any... ;D). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

There's a peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Japanese World War II destroyers. Please contribute. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]