Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 20 October 2009 [1].

Amagi class battlecruiser

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk · contribs)[reply]
Toolbox

The Amagi class was part of an ambitious plan by the Japanese to increase the fighting power of their fleet to be on par with the United States. However, their signing of the Washington Naval Treaty forced the battlecruisers to be redesigned as aircraft carriers. Only one ever saw service in this role (Akagi) because the other (Amagi) was severely damaged in Tokyo's 1923 earthquake. Thanks for any reviews you can provide; Parsecboy and I will respond as soon as we are able to and comments or questions. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would have thought that was worth adding to the article. ϢereSpielChequers 05:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree that the earlier ships should be included in this article (the articles on the ships themselves would be better), but you are right on the mountain information. I'll see if I can find an RS for it. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and yes I take your point about the earlier ships. ϢereSpielChequers 17:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found a RS for it. Interestingly, Conway's says that Takao was not named for the mountain (she was named for a town on Formosa/Taiwan instead, apparently). —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What edition of Conway's? My copy of All the World's Battleships: 1906-Present says "All four ships named after mountains." It's the same in my copy of All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O_o My copy of 1906–1921 says "[a]ll named after mountains except Takao, a town.". I'm guessing mine is the 2006 edition, as it has reprinting dates of 1986, 1997, 2002 and 2006 in the front... —Ed (talk • contribs) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. You know what it was? I was looking at the Kongo class section (Cam got me all confused :) ) Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, nice failure there. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Support All of my issues are now cleared. --Brad (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need convert templates throughout the article for knots, nautical miles, and tons. There are also conversions missing where others already have conversions.
  • I recommend a "blue link" cleanup. There are some too common terms that don't need them.
  • In the last section there are phrases "blazing wreck" and "raging fire". Those need toning down.
  • You need OCLC numbers on your book references. --Brad (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noting these issues have not yet been addressed. --Brad (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Naval Historical Center was renamed last December to Naval History & Heritage Command. I've fixed those references in addition to bringing in the cite DANFS templates. I've unstruck the OCLC problem as the new references brought in do not have the numbers. --Brad (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the cite fixes. I'd like to point out that you are stating some "need"s that are not requirements per WP:WIAFA, though: it is not necessary to use conversion templates, nor is it required to provide OCLCs. It's often preferable not to use conversion templates (as long as conversions are offered) since using many templates increases load time. OCLCs are just one type of (proprietary) identifier—all that is required is that enough information is provided to make the source distinctly identifiable, and an ISBN is certainly sufficient. I've noted your concerns, though, and will try to address them. Maralia (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Conversions as noted above still need to be done. It does not matter to me if the template is used or not but the conversions still need to be done (25 days later). I'll knock off the tangent about the OCLC numbers but should point out that the time you spent arguing against them could have been spent adding them. --Brad (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this isn't my FAC. I 'argued', as you describe it, because I feel it is important at FAC to distinguish requests from requirements; others not familiar with the criteria could have concluded from your requests that conversion templates and OCLC numbers are mandatory, and in that direction lies nominator confusion and even instruction creep. In any case, I have made sure now that conversions are offered for all units, with the exception of "tons" because the existing text does not specify whether the given figures are in metric tons or long tons. Ed and/or Parsecboy will need to address this. Maralia (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I apologize for my above comment; I just realized how snippy it sounded. I have fixed up more of the converts but tons still need clarification as noted. I don't think it's very fair for the nominators to vanish leaving you to clean things up. Otherwise the article would have failed already. --Brad (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I haven't vanished, though I certainly haven't been doing as much as I can. :/ Thank you both very much for your comments for your comments and help. I'm working on the tons, have to hunt through Conway's to see which ones he is referring too. —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Given the near-equivalence of long and metric tons and the fact that the Washington Naval Treaty treats them as substantially equivalent,[2] I would think that conversions from one to the other are unneeded to qualify a ship article for FA. Ships consume more than that difference in a day. A link to the measure used should be sufficient. Kablammo (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (out) - I believe that Conway's uses metric tons, based on page 145's assertion that the German capital ships is in "'long' tons of 1016kg; thereafter metric tonnes (of 1000kg) are used." I'll change the article accordingly right now. —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review by NuclearWarfare
    • File:Amagi line-drawing.JPG has a fine fair use rationale. It's good enough for inclusion.
    • File:Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi 1925.jpg - I am not sure if this is eligible for inclusion on Commons and would appreciate if a second image reviewer could take a look at this. To reside on Commons, it needs to be in public domain in both Japan and the United States. The shot was taken in 1925, which definitely makes it PD in Japan. However, Japan did have copyright relations with America on January 1, 1923 according to Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights. Per Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Subsisting copyrights, I don't believe that this image falls into public domain in the United States. I would definitely appreciate a second opinion here though.
  • Regards, NW (Talk) 03:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: File:Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi 3deck.jpg is linked in the article, but doesn't seem to exist on Commons or enwiki. NW (Talk) 16:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support - This article seems to describe everything one would want to know about a ship. It is clear and seems to be comprehensive. The sources are reliable. Once the image issues below are resolved, I support fully:

Good job! Awadewit (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article needs a copyedit, perhaps by someone less close to it. Some observations:

  • There are a remarkable number of "howevers". Please look at a style guide regarding usage of the word, and try to vary your terminology. Many of the "howevers" can (and should) be eliminated, or replaced by other words.
    • Yep, that was my 'go-to' word back in the day... I'm glad that I have gotten away from it in the articles I have written since this one. I'll address these concerns tomorrow after I sleep. Thanks! —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Planned" is also overused. Instead of saying the ships "had a planned x", or "were planned to be x", why not just: the ships "were to be x", at least in some cases? Again, vary the terminology, and in many casess, less is better.
  • Carefully look at the text. The "Amagi design" was not "an enlarged version of [a battleship]"; it was a design for a battleship, not the ship itself.
  • The last sentence of first paragraph of Background expresses several thoughts. Consider breaking it up.
  • Third paragraph of this section, first sentence: "there was still authorization" is stilted.
  • Next paragraph: "compromised down". Consider rewording.

These are just some examples. An independent look by a copyeditor would be helpful, if you can find one. Kablammo (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

Comment The article is wrong, Takao was named after a mountain E of Kyoto. Loosmark (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • I don't have a direct source for the Battlecruiser however I went to check in Lacroix and he states that the heavy cruiser Takao was named after a mountain. Loosmark (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, perhaps the later ship was named after the mountain, but I have to go with Conway's and say the town for the battlecruiser. Apologies, —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well the names Takao and Atago were simply re-used for the heavy cruisers. It is highly unlikely that they changed the name connection, not to mention that no warship of the IJN was named after a city. Apart from that it's not like Conway's is exactly the best source when it comes to Japanese ships. Do they even have a source for their claim? Loosmark (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Dude, my hands are tied. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I need a source that states Takao the battlecruiser was named for the mountain before it can be changed. :/ —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • FWIW, the corresponding Japanese article indicates that the original name of the fourth ship was to be Ashitaka, presumably (OR alert!) after Mount Ashitaka in Shizuoka prefecture. I am ignorant of Japanese; does it mean anything that the Japanese article gives the name of the fourth ship as 高雄, which matches Kaohsiung (old Takao city), while Mount Takao is given as 高尾(山)? Maralia (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Maralia, you appear to be correct in that the battlecruiser and the heavy cruiser used different kanji for their names but which happened to be pronounced the same, thus causing our confusion. Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Oops, never mind, after searching around I found that both cruisers had identical kanji in their names. I'll try to confirm which was which. Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I checked Peattie's Kaigun, Watts, and Jentschura and unfortunately none of them say what the battlecruiser was named after. I looked at LaCroix and it states that the cruiser was named after the mountain, but doesn't specifically say that the battlecruiser was named after the same mountain, instead simply stating that the battlecruiser happened to use the same name. I would say that the source used here stating that the battlecruiser was named after a city is fine. Cla68 (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Update: The experts here (not a reliable source in and of itself) state that the battlecruiser was named after the mountain. I guess now I would suggest stating in the article, if desired, that one source (Conway) states that the ship was named after a city while Lacroix states that it was named after the same mountain as the heavy cruiser. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: sourcing is good: checked sources, added a citation line for an appropriate Tertiary (Navweaps.com) Fifelfoo (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Decline: checked again at 05:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC), still referencing Midway's battle history off an inappropriate tertiary. Added two citations to references section, those refs need an editor to fully expand. Fifelfoo (talk). Was: incorrect citation, makes reference non RS, makes reference unverifiable. As a Tertiary source articles must be named and signed by an author, "Tucker, Spencer E.; Roberts, Priscilla Mary; Greene, et. al., Jack (2005). World War II: A Student Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1851098577. OCLC 57311334." // ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), p. 995 ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), p. 613 ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), pp. 846–847. If this Encyclopedia isn't a scholarly encyclopedia, I hope they've cited their secondary sources so you can locate them. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused. What makes it a non-reliable source? —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ed (I'm not trying to be inflammatory here). We're an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia shouldn't cite other encyclopedia. Historians (and I see this as a military history article), cite encyclopedias as reliable sources in very specific ways. Where an Encyclopedia can be cited: The article has been written by a specialist. The specialist has signed the article with their own name. An appropriate citation could look like "Blogs, "Amagi class" in "World War II: A Student Encyclopedia" Eds. [such and such]". Unfortunately, for me, the phrase "A Student Encyclopedia" triggers massive warning signs about the quality and reliability of such a source. I'm asking if you can provide additional information here, and then incorporate it into the article, to demonstrate why we should trust this source. See: Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History for why I'm concerned about encyclopedia citing encyclopedia, especially for claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this the same Spencer Tucker that I had problems with here? If so I recommend the whole source be pitched in the dumpster. I found some glaring errors in his work if they're the same author. --Brad (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting there—have rewritten most of the Akagi section using three new sources:
  1. Hoyt, Edwin P. (2001). Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict. New York: Cooper's Square Press. ISBN 0815411189.
  2. Ireland, Bernard (1998). Jane's Naval History of World War II. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 0004721438.
  3. Marston, Daniel, ed. (2005). The Pacific War Companion. Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1841768820.
If anyone sees a problem with these sources, please let me know. (Note that the Marston work is a collection of essays by named military historians; the cited essay is by a Fellow of the National Institute for Defense Studies, Tokyo.) Only the last paragraph of the section remains to be rewritten; I need to get some sleep, so I'll finish it tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great sources. Osprey have a reputation for publishing high quality resources. Jane's has its own reputation. I don't know Hoyt, and his back-catalogue doesn't give an impression that he's an academic. But he's certainly sufficient for an encyclopedia, and seems unproblematic. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoyt is an extremely prolific author. I was faced with using one of his books for Constitution but once I saw how many other books he's authored I placed him into the further reading section. However, none of his facts were incorrect at least as far as Constitution was concerned. His book would be fine for this article. --Brad (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Maralia; it is really appreciated. —Ed (talk • contribs) 07:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got distracted by trying to find some info on Hoyt's background/qualifications. Holy crap the man churns out some books (an average of nearly 4 per year for 50 years)! I've fleshed out the stub we had on him at Edwin Palmer Hoyt. His work seems largely well-received; Gale goes so far as to say he is "best known as a military historian. In this field, Hoyt has established a fine reputation". Hoyt's father (who seems to have had some influence on Hoyt's early appointments with the Office of War Information and at The Denver Post) seems notable in his own right, and may get his own article as well—but first, I will get back to finishing the Akagi section. Maralia (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have eliminated citations of the Tucker book, and rewritten the final section. No tertiary sources remaining, to my knowledge. I used an additional essay from the Marston book, this one by Robert W. Love who is a professor of military/naval history at the US Naval Academy and the author of a two-volume set on the History of the United States Navy. Maralia (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. That is a help. Thanks again, Maralia. Quick question: is the full reference to DANFS needed in the "References" section? I've never done that before...just assumed that {{Cite DANFS}} was enough. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think {{Cite web}}, rather than {{Cite DANFS}}, was being used in the article at the time Fifelfoo added a brief DANFS line to the full reference list. At the same time Brad was converting Cite web instances to Cite DANFS (which links to the explanatory DANFS article), I was adding a full reference to DANFS. Either solution would have probably been sufficient. Personally, though, I think it's helpful to clarify that we are citing an online version of a print publication. Maralia (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Cpuldn't find anything I had a problem with, so full support. Skinny87 (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation I recently promoted the page on the Akagi to GA status, and invite those interested in this page to go work on that one. It could easily make FA with a bit of work. Nezzadar (speak) 18:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per the conversation here, it appears there is some disagreement on the status of several of these images. I'm holding this open for a few days longer to see if Oda Mari's conversations with the museum can resolve the issue. Karanacs (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four days later, same; folks, let's get this resolved! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Oda Mari is unable to contact the museum director within the next few days, I believe that I presented enough evidence to show that the photos are legit public domain, since I own the picture book published by the museum which included sufficient detail on the background and history of the images. Cla68 (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my latest posts here. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the Commons page. Thank you for your patience. Oda Mari (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oda Mari has definitely been of a great help here with the efforts to get to the bottom of this image issue. In my opinion, I think we can safely treat the images as public domain for now. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good news everyone! As I was not able to contact the curator I first talked with, I phoned the Agency for Cultural Affairs. The Japanese Government Agency said all the pre-war photographs are not copyrighted and are PD. Because the old copyright law which was used from 1899 to 1970 is applied to them. The copyright protection period of photographs was 13 years after their creation/publication under the old law. Sorry it's in Japanese, but it is written on the page 27. The woman I talked with also said it is perfectly OK to copy and use those old photographs from recently, even if it's yesterday, published books. Thank you again for your patience. ( I posted the same thing on the Commons page too) Oda Mari (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Any lingering issues with this article appear to be resolved. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Amagi_class_battlecruiser/archive1&oldid=1136098999"