Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2017 [1].

Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō was an ocean liner that was converted into an aircraft carrier as part of a large program to surreptitiously reinforce their carrier fleet leading up to the Pacific War. Completed in 1942, she and her sister ship were thrust into major roles in the war after the Japanese lost four carriers at the Battle of Midway. Jun'yō thus had a very active war and her aircraft helped to sink the US carrier Hornet in late 1942. She survived being torpedoed twice by US submarines during the war, although Japanese shortages of steel and manpower caused her damage to remain unrepaired during the last year of the war. She survived the war, but was broken up a year later as she wasn't worth repairing to repatriate Japanese troops home. The article passed a Mil-Hist A-class review a year ago and I've tweaked it since to bring up to snuff. I'd like reviewers to look for any unexplained jargon terms as well as any unfelicitous prose that may be lingering.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Good to see you back at FAC. I've looked at the changes made since I did some copyediting for A-class, and I just now finished it up. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last year was kinda hectic, but I'm hoping that I can continue to participate at FAC again as much as I used to. Your edits look good; tightening up the text is almost always a good thing. Thanks for looking at this so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support all looks good. Just a couple of nitpicks:

"sponsons along the sides of the hull." you conclude consecutive sentences with this phrase. Can you vary it?

Good idea.

"which had been falsely reported by the Imperial Japanese Army as in their hands, " I might say "incorrectly" for "falsely" unless there was intent to deceive.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say what the motive was, given the rivalry between the IJA and the IJN, but it's clear that the Army was nowhere near the airfield when they sent the message, and had to retract the message at 07:00 the next morning. Thanks for taking the time to review this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support all good, would recommend adding "still" to "while under construction". -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I think we still need a source review, unless I've missed it. This can be requested at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: all sources are reliable, from reputable historans. Nothing problematic in Earwig's tool. Formatting of footnotes and full citations are consistent and complete. The only thing missing seems to be a link to Norman Polmar. Disclaimer: this is my first time doing one of these, so if there's something I missed, please let me know.Parsecboy (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Added, thanks for checking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- taking into account three reviews (different editors to the above) at MilHist ACR, I think this has had a thorough going-over, including that of a non-MilHister; Sturm, I'm going to promote but could you just check for me the low figure in the infobox for aircraft carried, because based on the info in Flight deck arrangements I made it out to be 42, not 48 (temporary blindness perhaps). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, it's in the first bit of the 2nd para in the flight deck arrangements. 12 fighters, plus 18 each dive and torpedo bombers. Reduced after Midway to the 42 that you saw.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the infobox says 48–53 aircraft, and the way I read it was that the plan was 12 A5Ms + 4 stored, 18 D3As + 2, and 18 B5Ns = 54. For commissioning in 1942 this became 12 A6Ms + 3, 18 D3As + 2, and 18 B5Ns = 53 (high figure in infobox). After Battle of Midway it was 21 Zeros, 12 D3As and 9 B5Ns = 42 (disagreeing with low figure in infobox). BTW if FACbot goes through before we resolve then let's continue on the article talk page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm not counting the spares, which were either triced up between the beams under the flight deck or boxed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough but then the range in the infobox would be 42–48, not 48–53, wouldn't it (based on the text)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.