Talk:Japanese submarine I-5/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 22:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Bertke, Kindell & Smith is a self-published source. As per WP:SPS, you need to present evidence that one of them is an acknowledged subject-matter expert or delete all sourcing derived attributed to them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for highlighting that. Gordon Smith was the author of The War at Sea (Smith, Gordon. The War at Sea. London: Ian Allan. 1989. ISBN 9780711017399) and was behind naval-history.net. Does this demonstrate evidence of being a subject matter expert please? Alternatively do you know of a better source that details Japanese submarine operations please? For example, would Hackett and Kingsepp's list of the boat's movements at combinedfleet.net, which gives similar information, be acceptable instead? simongraham (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hackett and Kingsepp would be an eminently satisfactory replacement since the website is overseen by Jon Parshall and Anthony Tully, both published authors on the IJN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. I have updated the references and done a bit of a tidy up. simongraham (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link for Truk needs to be fixed
Image appropriately licensed
Too much detail on the sub's specifications in the lede; the lede's supposed to be a summary. I'd suggest one sentence covering her important aspects, her aircraft and her long range, but save the aircraft assembly problem for the main body.
Attack on Pearl Harbor isn't a proper noun so decapitalize Attack
Too many exact dates, generally I only use one for the date of loss, otherwise it's month and year or just year.
Stricken date isn't something that I would put in the lede unless there's no other date for going out of service, which isn't relevant here. Link navy list.
In the infobox
- link input and output units for both tons and bhp
- Be consistent about parenthesizing submerged and surfaced
- How many screws?
- One electric motor, really?
- I-5 wasn't a diesel-electric because the diesels directly powered the shafts without using electric motors as in a true diesel-electric system
had a larger displacement greater
You've reversed surfaced and submerged displacements in the description and the infobox. Be sure to tell the reader which is which in the description
That page of Hashimoto in the American 1st edition that I inherited from my father doesn't provide any specifications for I-5
Electric motors are measured in bhp, not shp
Tell the reader that the sub used fuel oil, not generic oil
Add a link for nautical miles
A complement of 93 was carried. carried? reads oddly
Main armament was similar on the Junsen 1-gata Similar to what? And needs an opening "the"
Proximity alert for Type 89. One solution would be to combine When the boat entered service, the standard Japanese torpedo was the Type 89, which entered service in 1931. The Type 89 was a formidable weapon that delivered a warhead of 300 kilograms (660 lb) over a range of 5,500 metres (18,045 ft) at 45 knots (83 km/h; 52 mph) And clarify that the Type 89 was only the standard torpedo for submarines.
Avoid puff words like formidable and potent.
Link warhead
Boyd and Yoshida state that the second 140mm mount was only added when the catapult and hangars were removed in 1940. Carpenter and Polmar do not state that the second gun was removed in 1933 on page 95
watertight and retractable ~~and~~
seaplane launched into the sea to take-off huh? More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is very thorough. I have made the corrections. There is some confusion about aspects of the specification and some sources are conflicting. I am also aware that my notes were taken when we could go to libraries so please amend the page numbers if I have mistyped. This is particularly true of Hashimoto as I can no longer access the copy I used. For example, I have noted that he mentions the boat's aircraft returning images after Pearl Harbor, which conflicts with the comment that the aircraft facilities had been removed by then. Please feel free to make any other suggestions too. This is a very good learning experience for me. simongraham (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion for contradictory info is to present both (or more) sides in the text and let the reader decide. Or you can go with what you think is the more likely of the two and relegate the other one(s) to a note. See WP:REFGROUP for the code to handle this.
If you want to keep the displacements in the lede, which I'm not fond of, you should add context by comparing them to something like a German Type VII or a USS Gato-class sub.
Watch for over use of years in the lede and the main body. Forex, the 2nd para of the lede says that she went missing in 1944 and then gives the probable date of loss, complete of the year. The reader knows that this second date will still be within 1944, so why insult his intelligence by telling him again?
the time for launch the time "required"
Do you know how the aircraft was placed in the water before the catapult was installed? Was the assembled plane simply slid down the aft deck?
more primitive sounds like opposite of more better. Simply use primitive or change it to "less advanced"
link bridge.
in 1940 the provision to operate an aircraft was removed and an aft deck gun fitted.[12] A single 25 mm (1 in) Type 96 anti-aircraft gun was fitted to an extended bridge at the same time. Reword this to tell the reader that the boat was refitted in 1940 during which x, y, and z happened.
Proximity alert for patrol
On 16 November 1941, the submarine departed as part of the 2nd Submarine Squadron led by Admiral Mitsumi Shimizu in I-7, alongside I-4 and I-6, arriving off the coast of Hawaii to take up a patrol position west of Oahu. Awkward
Escape? More likely passing through the patrol area
Considering that the declaration of war was only an hour after the attack on Pearl, why even mention it?
submarine being withdrawn swiftly ready for the next offence missing word, at any rate awkward
After a brief interlude on 9 January 1942 joining the hunt for the aircraft carrier USS Lexington along with other vessels of the Japanese Navy, awkward
What was the nationality of SS Washingtonian
Invasion of Kiska was on 6 June and "from" reads oddly.
situation, meant, delete the comma
What position did Komatsu hold that he could order the conversions?
I-5 was one of the submarines reassigned reassigned? don't you mean modified or converted?
on 17 March 1943 move this to after fitted--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no view on whether to include displacement in the lede. I included it based on feedback from a previous GA review, but am very happy to remove it. I have made the other changes too. Thank you for your comments. I am always keen to learn. simongraham (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to put as few specifications as possible in the lede as I think that it's redundant to the main body because you can't really summarize measurements. Others feel differently, which is why I said it was optional.

adding adj=on when you're abbreviating the units does nothing as the abbreviation overrides the adjectival form--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]