Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Yamato/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jappalang's comments

[edit]
No longer issues. Jappalang (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Design and construction

  • "... their firepower would offset American industrial power."
    Do you not mean "American numerical superiority", or "... their firepower would destroy more ships than United States can build."? To me, "industrial power" would apply to everything, even the production of socks...
Fixed slightly, though your suggestion may work better. If you think so, feel free to change it. Cam (Chat) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... learn of the class' characteristics of the class, ..."
    "Class'" or "class's"? Perhaps the above suggestion could dodge this bullet?
Changed to a word that doesn't end with "s". Cam (Chat) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armament

No. It isn't. The guns combined weighed (my apologies for the shoddy math!) ~450 tonnes. However, when you factor in the fact that the turret was completely surrounded by over two feet (26 inches approximately) of concrete-molybdenum-reinforced armour plating, the weight of each individual turret was several thousand tonnes. I've added somewhat to the citation to clarify that. It's for each gun as an individual barrel. The destroyer displacement comes when you factor in the crapload of mechanisms and plating that were added onto the turret. This is described in slightly more detail in the main class article. Cam (Chat) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Leyte Gulf

  • "... Takeo Kurita's Centre Force ..."
    British English: "Centre", American English: "Center"; I think the MOS allows corrections to adapt names to the regional language, does it?
Fair enough. I'm not entirely sure what the issue is though...the article is in British English. Would you prefer "center" in this case? Cam (Chat) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh?! It is in British English? Can the major editors confirm this? I made some American English changes (towards -> toward), thinking it was... Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, the gods must have struck me blind with all the discussions of which English in the article talk page and FAC... Jappalang (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ten-Go

  • "Admiral Raymond Spruance ordered six old battleships, in the area to provide shore bombardment, to prepare for surface action."
    Eh, what (fragmented sentence)?
Ah. That is appalling isn't it? I've fixed it somewhat. Let me know what you think. Cam (Chat) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yamato obtained her first radio contact with aircraft at 10:00;"
    Radio contact? I presume this is the pickup of radio chatter? So... the seaplanes never radioed back to the Allies about the Japanese positions? If it means radar, why are the seaplanes not the first radio contact then?
Japanese radar was really bad (and that may even be being generous). It tended to only pick up really large groups of aircraft. I've changed the "radio" reference for the sake of clarification. Ed wrote that particular bit, and I have since trout-thwacked him. Cam (Chat) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be a good idea to put a sourced footnote here on that tibbet of information: WWII Japanese radar sucks and cannot pick up one or two planes! Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it done. Cam (Chat) 17:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... approached from all points of the compass ..."
    Did they attack from eight or sixteen directions (N, S, E, W, etc) or is this just writing for a dramatic effect? If the latter, "points of the compass" could simply be replaced with "directions".
I've just changed that to "directions". Cam (Chat) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fourth unconfirmed hit ..."
    Which were the earlier three unconfirmed hits?
Bad grammar. The fourth hit on the battleship wasn't fully confirmed by pilots. The three earlier hits were all confirmed; the fourth wasn't. At least that's my guess. I'll ask Ed, since he's the one who added that bit. Cam (Chat) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck discovery

  • "In 1982, an expedition to the South China sea drawing <space> on US wartime records produced some promising results, but the wreckage discovered could not be positively identified."
    Note the possible ambiguous reading...
I've changed it slightly. Cam (Chat) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that by casting my reading eye slightly off to the side (and dim the brain), I could see it as results were yielded from an expedition, recorded on US wartime records, to the drawing of the South China sea. I think enclosing the phrase in commas would have helped... Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural significance

  • "Yamato, and especially the story of her sinking, have often appeared in Japanese media."
    The qualifier of "often" is sourced to just two database entries on IMdB (which does not talk about the frequency of appearances even)???
Alright. Removed. Cam (Chat) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These appearances usually portray the ship's last mission as a brave, selfless, but futile, symbolic effort by the crew to defend their homeland."
    Did the two cited books (Yoshida and Minear, p. xvii; Evans and Peattie, p. 378) state this commentary?
I'm not sure. Cla68 has those books, so I'll direct his attention over here. Cam (Chat) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to check those books later today when I'm back in my home library. Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I removed "symbolic"; 4 adjectives seemed like overkill to me, but of course anyone is welcome to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evans' book doesn't say it. I can't locate Yoshida's book as I seem to have misplaced it. So, since I can't confirm that sentence, perhaps it needs to be removed. Cla68 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not terribly enamoured with the short contextless mentions of the two shows; what makes them culturally significant? Having much thought on this, I have added information per this edit. Please check it and copyedit it. Is there any comment on this? Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. No objections from me. Cam (Chat) 18:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • "Evans and Peattie" is not listed.
It is now. Cam (Chat) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref removed. It wasn't particularly necessary anyways. Cam (Chat) 05:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above are as of this revision. Jappalang (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC) this version. Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC) this revision. Jappalang (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC) this revision. Jappalang (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)this revision. Jappalang (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC) this revision. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Japanese_battleship_Yamato/archive1&oldid=1126596499"