Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it's been significantly expanded since it passed GA several years ago. This is a co-nom between Cla68 and myself. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments It's great to see this article in good shape, as well as a joint nomination. However, I think that this needs a bit more work to reach A class
    • " The following month her aircraft bombed Darwin, Australia" - they probably didn't; from memory, the IJN aircraft concentrated on the ships in Darwin Harbour while the IJAAF land based bombers went after the town and its airfields. I'd suggest changing this to 'The following month her aircraft participated in an attack on Darwin, Australia'
      • Some of the ship's aircraft were probably among those that attacked land targets in and around Darwin.
    • What was the composition of the carrier's air group prior to 1938?
      • Added.
    • "She supported operations off central China" - this should be 'operations in Central China'
      • Good catch.
    • Can more be said about the ship's involvement in the war in China?
      • I've hit the limit of my sources, but it seems to have been limited pretty much to ground support.
    • "The IJN centered its doctrine on air strikes that combined the air groups within carrier divisions, rather than each individual carrier. When more than one carrier division was operating together, the divisions' air groups were combined with each other." - this is a bit repetitive and could be combined into a single sentence
    • "Akagi was designated as the flagship for the First Air Fleet, a title the ship would hold until her sinking 14 months later." - this was more than 'a title' as it involved the commander of the Air Fleet and his staff being posted onboard the ship. What impact did this have on her crew size?
      • Fixed, no specific numbers are available.
    • Given that the quality of the IJN's air crew was an important part of its success during the early months of the Pacific War, it would be interesting if more detail could be provided about the pre-war training exercises which were conducted. Were the IJN deck crew and aircraft maintenance personnel as well trained as the pilots?
    • It would be helpful to provide the strategic context for the various operations Akagi was involved in during World War II (eg, that the attack on Pearl Harbor aimed to cripple the US Pacific Fleet, the attack on Darwin sought to prevent it being used as a base to contest the invasion of Java, etc). The present text has the ship sailing around doing stuff, but it's not explained what the Japanese hoped to achieve.
      • Good idea.
    • "On 26 March Akagi set sail for the Indian Ocean raid." - 'set sail' is rather misleading as the Japanese force was already at sea south of Java. More generally, the current text doesn't really capture the fact that this ship spent what was an unusually long time at sea conducting complex and geographically dispersed operations during the first months of the Pacific War.
      • Actually not, the Kido Butai was based at Staring Bay during the operations in and near Indonesia/Australia.
    • This PD map from the West Point Military Academy would be of value to the article (non-direct link here).
      • Good idea.
    • The blow by blow coverage of the Battle of Midway seems greatly excessive given the relatively brief coverage accorded to the other battles the ship participated in. I'd suggest chopping this back heavily.
      • Given the many myths about exactly how the Americans actually destroyed the Japanese carriers, I believe that this level of detail is needed to show just how the Americans caught the Japanese at a disadvantage during the battle.
    • Can anything at all be said about the experiances of the ship's crew? For instance, how habitable was the ship? was she regarded as being particularly lucky or unlucky? what did her air group think about her? At what point in time was she manned by 1,630 sailors, and did this vary across her life? Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' I'm happy to support this for A class. However, I think that the Midway section is greatly over long and should be cut back before it goes to a FAC. This kind of detail is simply disproportionate to the rest of the article. Nick-D (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • The lead is really rather brief given the length of the article (67kb) - service history information can be expanded (forex, I think that she was Nagumo's flagship during the war should be noted, maybe some minimal information on the results of her activities, like the BBs sunk/damaged at Pearl, sinking Dorsetshire, etc.) and maybe some more technical stuff (like number of aircraft carried) - the Kido Butai should really be mentioned as well.
      • Added some of the requsted information.
    • Might want to consider the {{#tag:ref||group=Note}} template for the notes, so that the citations are formatted the same as the rest. Not necessary though.
      • What will this do?
        • It formats the footnotes like this: [Note 1]
  1. ^ Text of the note.[1]
  1. ^ Citation

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • We used to have more reviewers for ships than for anything else ... what happened? I'm not faulting anyone, Nick is busy jetsetting around the world and Parsec has grad school now ... but we're close to 28 days now with no supports. If this is headed to FAC, and if we can get a support or two, I'll be happy to copyedit and add my support. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Nick's support came right after this ... moved to his section].
  • "an aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), originally begun as an Amagi-class battlecruiser. She was converted under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty to an aircraft carrier.": an aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN). Her hull was designed and built as an Amagi-class battlecruiser hull, but the ship was converted under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty to an aircraft carrier.
    • Rephrased.
  • "a single enlarged flight deck, with a greater capacity for aircraft and an island superstructure.": a single, larger flight deck with an island superstructure.
    • Rephrased.
  • "Akagi's aircraft participated in the Second Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s and she became the flagship of the First Air Fleet or Kido Butai (Striking Force) in early 1941.": Since the sentence is long and there's not a clear connection between the two halves of the sentence, a comma is needed after "1930s". - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • "Kure, Japan": second commas (here and probably elsewhere). - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • "Construction was halted, however, when ... The treaty, however, authorized ...": No more than one "however" per paragraph.
    • Rephrased.
  • "33,000 tons": conversion?
    • Indeed, done.
  • "beyond economic repair": beyond economically feasible repair - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed.
  • "IJA": IJN?
    • Indeed.
  • "keel-built": I think a lot of readers won't follow.
  • "Maya class gunboat": hyphen
    • Yep. Added a few others like first-class as well.
  • "at a standard load": at standard load
  • "trial load": ?
    • Deleted.
  • "it was a case of convergent evolution": simplify
    • You mean that I can't just link it and expect readers to make the jump from biology to ship design?
  • "Akagi's main flight deck was 190.2 meters (624 ft 0 in) long, her middle flight deck began right in front of the bridge and was only 15 meters (49 ft 3 in) long and her lower flight deck was 55.02 meters (180 ft 6 in) long.": This would be better if it were more parallel, so: "Akagi's main flight deck was 190.2 meters (624 ft 0 in) long, her middle flight deck (beginning right in front of the bridge) was only 15 meters (49 ft 3 in) long, and her lower flight deck was 55.02 meters (180 ft 6 in) long."
    • Agreed.
  • "lighter and smaller than they were during World War II.": lighter and smaller than during World War II.
    • Done.
  • "slightly sloped": sloped slightly
    • Agreed.
  • "to take off directly from the hangars, while landing operations were in progress on the main flight deck above.": no comma.
    • Agreed.
  • "11.8 by 13 meters (38 ft 9 in × 42 ft 8 in) in size.": not a big deal for me, but someone's going to ask for consistency on "by" vs. "×".
    • This is a template thing and I had problems with this on one of my other carrier FACs. I'll have to look up and see what I did about it.
  • I'm not sure yet if this is AmEng ("authorized", "armored") or something else ("centreline"). - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand your confusion; somebody inserted lots of Brit English into the article without me realizing.
  • "no other alternatives": no alternatives
    • Done.
  • "developed by Shiro Kabaya when she was refitted in 1931": How many Westerners will know that "Shiro" isn't a woman's name?
    • Replaced with Japanese-designed as the nationality is more important than the person.
  • "It was replaced with a transverse cable system with six wires developed by Shiro Kabaya when she was refitted in 1931 and that was replaced in turn by the Kure Model 4 type (Kure shiki 4 gata) before Akagi began her modernization in 1935.": The dates are the reader's best clue here, so I'd prefer: "It was replaced during refitting in 1931 with a transverse cable system with six wires developed by Shiro Kabaya, then replaced again before Akagi began her modernization in 1935 by ..."
    • See how it reads now.
  • "No island was fitted as completed, the carrier being commanded ...": The deck had no island superstructure; the carrier was commanded ... [Also, link "island", here and in the lead.] - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3rd Year Type No. 1", "10th Year Type": needs a link. Whether it needs quote marks depends on whether you think a link substitutes to some extent for quote marks.
  • "guns; one twin Model B turret on each side of the middle flight deck and six in casemates aft.": guns, six in casemates aft and the rest in two twin Model B turrets, one on each side of the middle flight deck.
    • Done and linked.
  • "between 22,600–24,000 m": "and" per WP:DASH and Chicago.
    • Done.
  • "vulnerable flight deck, hangars, and other features": What features did she have that non-carriers didn't have that made her more vulnerable?
    • Her superstructure was almost entirely unarmored and it was far, far bigger a target than any cruiser or battleship's superstructure.
  • "the impracticability of carriers engaging in gun duels": I'd go with "impracticality", from "impractical", meaning "not likely to work out well in practice". "Impracticability" is a less common word, and means here that the carriers couldn't engage in gun duels ... obviously they could, they just didn't do well against battleships. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. More later
  • "When Akagi was being designed the problem of how to deal with exhaust gases in carrier operations had not been resolved. The swivelling funnels of the Hōshō had not proved successful and wind-tunnel testing had not provided an answer either. So Akagi and Kaga were each given different solutions to evaluate in real-world conditions.": On Akagi's predecessor Hōshō, the hot exhaust gases vented by swivelling funnels posed a danger to the ship, and wind-tunnel testing had not suggested any solutions. [Also: when a possible danger is suggested, readers will generally want to know the outcome; did the new exhaust system on Akagi avoid the danger?]
    • How does it read now?
  • "was downturned 120° ...": was angled 30° below horizontal
    • Added.
  • "with its mouth facing the sea and the smaller one exhausted ...": This would be easier to read with a comma after "sea".
    • Added.
  • "hot exhaust gases and a cover that could be raised to allow the exhaust gasses": Either plural is fine; pick one.
    • Done.
  • "As a battlecruiser her expected speed was ": would have been
    • Added.
  • "some of which were oil-fired and the others used a mix of oil and coal." nonparallel unless there's a comma after "oil-fired"
    • Added.
  • "Akagi was reduced to second-class reserve status ...", "first-class reserve", "third-class reserve": Technically, it's her status that was reduced, although I agree that this lingo is common and I don't have a problem with it. A wikilink is probably needed for each of the three classes; I don't think they need in-text explanations.
    • If I knew what the differences were, I could do that, but I'm just parroting what my sources.
  • "her radio and ventilation systems overhauled and improved.": were overhauled and improved.
    • Yes.
  • "Due to being in dock for the refit, the carrier missed participation in the Shanghai Incident which took place ...": You can lose almost all of those words with no loss of meaning.
  • "the IJN's developing carrier doctrine was still in its earliest stages.": the IJN's carrier doctrine was still in its earliest stages. (Actually, this is pretty close to the example of redundancy given at WP:Checklist!)
    • Indeed.
  • "pre-emptive": American dictionaries are pretty solidly against the hyphen here, but it's universal in BritEng and AusEng.
    • Done
  • "Aerial strikes against enemy carriers were later, beginning around 1932–1933, deemed of equal importance in order to establish air superiority during the initial stages of battle.": I'm not sure I follow. Do we not know whether it was in 1932 or 1933, or were important directives issued in both years? Were aerial strikes of equal importance in gaining air superiority, or were they contribute to a separate goal that became co-equal with air superiority?
  • Done. I've done less of the copyediting than usual, but that doesn't of course mean that the nom has to do it; anyone could, and you've done enough for other writers that I think you deserve some help with the workload. What would be even better would be if you got the help before I copyedit :) - Dank (push to talk) 22:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Reconstruction. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Be consistent in how you notate times
  • Do we know when the Kure photo album was published?
    • I've queried the uploader about its history.
  • File:Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Akagi_01.jpg: if the author is the "Japanese military", how can we assert that it is "the work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy"?
    • There is no template for war booty photos, which is what this is.
  • File:Pacific_War_-_Japanese_Carrier_OP_1941-42_-_Map.jpg: source link is dead
    • Updated link.
  • Be consistent in how you notate multi-author/editor works, both in footnotes and bibliography
  • FN 15, 30: publisher?
    • Changed.
  • FN 21: which Goldstein?
    • Fixed.
  • FN 60: publisher? Retrieval date?
    • Deleted.
  • Don't mix cited and uncited sources in References
    • Separated.
  • In general, multiple formatting inconsistencies in footnotes and references alike
    • Still finding inconsistencies here. It's not as much of a concern for A-class, and I certainly wouldn't oppose over ref formatting (unless it was outrageous), but if you intend to go to FAC it will be a bigger problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 59: why is this note here and not in Notes? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

  • This article has a large number of notes and it seems to me you could incorporate some of it in the prose: e.g. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, etc.
    • Its better now but I think the remaining notes could be pared down some more.
  • Others I would probably just delete them since in my opinion the facts were trivial or about people who did not appear to meet the WPMH notability guidelines: e.g. note 3, 16, 19.
    • I've deleted a bunch of the notes about non-notable pilots.
  • As Nikkimaria mentioned, FN 59 is actually a good candidate for a note since it explains something confusing although I found it trivial.
  • I second the need for constistent citations; you need to have ref tags in the notes section after you clean it up. Kirk (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Picked up the copyediting from where Dank left off, starting with Reconstruction and, for the moment, finishing immediately before Sinking. Couple of things in the meantime:

  • Not sure what the standard has been in other Japanese carrier articles but I find it a bit wearing to see the inverted commas around the Japanese planes' names every time they appear. I'd have thought that one could introduce them with the inverted commas and then drop them -- I find in fact that in some of the footnotes and in the main body of the Midway section you don't use them, so perhaps that's impetus to follow my suggestion and just use on first appearance, like you would a wikilink...
  • I totally agree with my colleagues above who've recommended cutting down on the footnotes, particularly where we mention every non-notable pilot's name. This stuff may belong in a book or other in-depth study but in a WP article it looks like showing off and is so painstakingly detailed that it actually detracts from the reading experience.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Akagi&oldid=456761608"