Talk:Mochitsura Hashimoto

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mochitsura Hashimoto/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 09:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be taking this review. I'll start off making some preliminary points and doing a quick review, then once we sort all that out we'll move onto the template. Any questions feel free to ask! Retrolord (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing all those Ed. I'll get started on a formal review now. Retrolord (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	All seems good but im a bit worried about this sentence "Assured he would be treated as a naval officer instead of a prisoner of war or war criminal, Hashimoto nonetheless remained under guard during his time in the United States" Could you reword it to make it flow better? Happy to hear what you think if you disagree. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 01:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Also this "Hashimoto took the stand" Could this be in a more encyclopedic tone? just seems to be too coloquial to me, but its only a minor issue. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 01:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues that I can see.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Do you think this clashes with the unnecessary detail criteria? "and over objections from Cady and McVay." Is it important enough to mention? Removed. —Ed!(talk) 01:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Still a bit to do, such as the image fair use checks and such, but no major problems i can see arising that would stop this passing. Retrolord (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks again for looking at this! —Ed!(talk) 01:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

# of torpedos

This article says 2 struck USS ind.

Kaiten article (while not a kaiten) says 3/6 type 93 unmanned struck.

What's the truth of the number of strikes? :) If it's unknown it should say "At least 2"

6 were launched.

70.160.12.49 (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

In research of a related topic, I happened to run across information in several places suggesting that of the 6 torpedoes fired, for sure 2 torpedoes and possibly 3 were reported to have struck the ship. This was the best record available, apparently even in the official information on the event from both sides, including survivor testimony and reports from the attacking submarine. There was some speculation on whether a possible 3rd torpedo impact might have been merely a secondary explosion. 69.73.82.52 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding family - article is confusing

The article said said he has a wife and four children in the Early Life section. Then later stated in the Sinking of Indianapolis section that his "entire family had been killed" in the Hiroshima bombing. How could he have had a daughter in 1947 if his "entire family," including his wife, has been killed in Aug. 1945? Internet research seem to indicate most of the comments regarding his family were propagated from one or more articles which described the Indianapolis sinking and survivor reunions, and provided some minor details on Hashimoto's 1990 attendance to a reunion and a secondarily-reported quote that Hashimoto himself said something to the effect of, "my whole family was killed," in reference to Hiroshima. There may be some room for interpretation on how literal this was intended, and whether the intent of his actual wording and/or the translation into English was accurate (it was reported he was speaking through a translator). Much of the current information regarding his family's fate appears to stem from this quote, and may have since been conveyed or reworded in a way to further confuse the issue (such as being transformed into assumed factual statements like, "his entire family was killed.") There is a reasonably high likelihood he was referencing his own close blood-relatives (parents/siblings/etc.). Available reporting also indicates attendance to later survivor's reunions by his daughter (Sonoe) and granddaughter, proving that at least his wife had to have survived the war. 69.73.82.52 (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Japanese Wikipedia mentions his son Yoshihiro Hashimoto and his grandson Yoshimitsu who both attend/attended (?) memorial services at the Kaiten Memorial Museum every year in March. This website even shows a photo of his son (3rd pic from below): https://gokoku.exblog.jp/17329523 Gunsou (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)