Talk:Japanese cruiser Asama

Untitled

Hi, should the name not be HIJMS Asama? As in His Impirial Japanese Majesty's Ship? Pattenicus

Yes and no. The use of HIJMS as well as IJN are considered "informal" usage. HIJMS is more common in older literature. Neither usage was officially used by the Imperial Japanese Navy. --MChew 15:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese cruiser Asama/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Several dupe links to be fixed

   Check ENGVAR - see a defence and defense

   "The Russians were unaware that war had begun that night when the IJN launched a surprise attack on Port Arthur until notified by the Japanese that morning." - this is pretty awkwardly worded.

   ..." including Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov's flagship, the battleship Petropavlovsk, and Asama engaged the Russian cruisers before falling back on Tōgō's battleships." - this almost makes it sound like Asama was part of the Russian fleet - I'd probably split it after mentioning Petropavlovsk.

   {xt|"the two ships sailed departed..."}} - seems like there's an extra word here.

   Can we get some context on the American Expeditionary Squadron? I assume this is a Japanese formation - maybe something could be added in a note?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Asama-cruiser.jpg - needs the Japanese/US copyright tags instead of the pd-old one

   File:Japanese cruiser Asama 1946.jpg - this could be tricky, since it doesn't meet the second condition of the copyright template (it was obviously not taken before 1946) - we'd need a pre-1956 date of publication, I think.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

You've got eagle eyes, my friend! Reworded everything, see how they work for you. Not sure what to add about the American Expeditionary Squadron as it seems to have been a temporary formation to protect shipping along the west coast of the Americas. I'm not sure of its exact name, nor when it was formed or disbanded, so I'm a little reluctant to add a link, and its activities discussed in the next couple of sentences. But if you think something more is needed, can you be a bit more specific? Thanks again for the thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

After having read through Izumo, I see what it was - maybe just add a note explaining that it was an Anglo-Japanese formation and maybe include the ships that were assigned to it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Added a note. Didn't bother with composition on first mention as the squadron flagship, Izumo, is mentioned as such after the wreck. But I can change that if you think that it would be clearer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)