Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier

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 by Nikkimaria (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier

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

Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Shokaku-class carriers were completed just before the beginning of the Pacific War and have been judged to have been the best aircraft carriers in the world at that time. They participated in almost every carrier battle during the war until their loss in 1944. Both ships missed the Battle of Midway and thus, by default, became the core of the IJN's striking forces for the rest of the war. They sank two of the four American fleet carriers lost during the war, plus a British light carrier. I'd like reviewers to evaluate how appropriate the level of detail is for a ship-class article, see if I missed any jargon and look for any infelicities of prose and this will be headed for FAC after this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Sturm, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "was a pair of aircraft carriers" --> "were a pair of aircraft carriers"?
  • in the lead, "With the exception of the Battle of Midway, they participated in almost every major naval..." Is the word "almost" necessary here, given that you have already noted the exception in the start of the sentence?
  • in the lead "replace her aircraft lost during the battle..." Is the word "her" necessary here?
  • in the lead "Neither attempt succeeded and the Japanese were able to withdraw..." --> "Neither attempt succeeded and the Japanese withdrew..." ?
  • "as part of the 1937 3rd Naval Armaments Supplement Program..." the closeness of the "1937" to "3rd" seems to distract the eye a little, I wonder if you could move 1937. For instance, perhaps "in 1937 as part of the 3rd Naval Armaments Supplement Program". Would that work?
  • "tasked to the less demanding" --> "tasked with the less demanding"?
  • "which forced Zuikaku to return to with her sister..." I think this is missing a word here, possibly "Japan"? Can you please confirm?
  • "The American landings on Guadalcanal and Tulagi on 7 August..." probably best to include the year here
  • " American carriers USS Enterprise and USS Saratoga..." is the second "USS" necessary here? I note earlier in the prose you use this construction: " the carriers USS Yorktown and Lexington"
  • you appear to use several different piped links to refer to "Truk"; I suggest just one, on the first mention;
  • inconsistent presentation/caps "Operation Mo" v. "Operation KE"
  • "sailed for Tawi-Tawi in mid-May in the Philippines" --> "sailed for Tawi-Tawi, in the Philippines, in mid-May"?
  • "recover the Division's few..." --> "recover the division's few"?
  • per WP:NUMNOTES avoid starting sentences with figures, for instance here: "49 officers and 794 crewmen..."

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Great work, reads well and covers the class comprehensively. I have a few mostly grammar quibbles[reply]

  • suggest linking counterattack in the lead
  • this is a very long sentence and has no punctuation Two months later they attempted to support a major offensive by the Imperial Japanese Army to push the United States Marines off Guadalcanal in the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands where they crippled one US carrier and damaged another in exchange for damage to Shōkaku and a light carrier.
  • suggest The two Shōkaku-class carriers were ordered as part of the 3rd Naval Armaments Supplement Program of 1937
  • suggest The consequent airstrike cost only one dive bomber but sank the destroyer and damaged Neosho badly enough that she had to be scuttled a few days later.
  • suggest The airgroups of the two Japanese carriers were decimated in the battle, having just been describing the US carriers, it is a bit unclear at present.
  • but their target location was bad comes across as a bit colloquial. Inaccurate?
  • suggest large number of airborne American aircraft
  • suggest hidden by the overcast conditions
  • suggest The First Carrier Division sailed for Tawi-Tawi in the Philippines in mid-May.
  • the green pilots is a bit colloquial, inexperienced? could do with a comma after pilots
  • Dickson and Gill need an ISBN/ISSN/OCLC
  • no alt text (not ACR requirement)
  • all other toolchecks came out ok

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded things, sometimes along the lines that you suggest, sometimes not. See if they work for you. Thanks for your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of typos, but I fixed them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This looks very good to me. Just a few minor comments:
    • "Jentschura, Hansgeorg; Jung, Dieter & Mickel, Peter (1977). Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869–1945. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute", slight inconsistency in presentation of publisher. Consider you use "United States Naval Institute" here vs "Naval Institute Press" in most other entries.
      • The name changed before the publication of the more recent books.
    • "Drawing on their experience with their existing...", consider more simply "Drawing on experience with their existing..." (suggestion only)
    • Some inconsistency in presentation of "air group" vs "airgroups" (1 instance).
    • Is there a missing word here: "The airgroups of the sisters were decimated in the battle, which forced Zuikaku to return to Japan with her Shōkaku..."?
    • "and 2 recon aircraft..." language seems a little informal using the abbrev "recon" here, suggest writing in full. Anotherclown (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now we just need an image review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Shōkaku-class_aircraft_carrier&oldid=686024260"