Talk:Japanese cruiser Nisshin/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "the lessening of tensions with Chile and financial pressures caused the Argentinians to sell her before delivery to the Empire of Japan as tensions between Japan and the Russian Empire were rising." - I think that this sentence covers too much ground, and the last bit implies that Argentina sold the ship to Japan because of the rising tensions, which contradicts the body of the article (where the Argentinians were offering the ships to both countries!)
  • Agreed and rephrased. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Can anything be said about the process of manning the ships with Japanese sailors and working them up? This seems amazingly fast, even for a major national crisis (though the April-May operations look a lot like operational training)
  • As usual nothing specific is mentioned in any of my sources, but the two ships did have almost two months from delivery in February for working up before they were committed to action in April. I myself would be curious to know if the hired crew was retained for a time to train up the Japanese sailors and where the sailors came from (reservists, new sailors, transferred from other ships?). And how the numbers required to unexpectedly man them impacted the overall manpower availability for the IJN.
• I take it that the sources don't say what this ship's casualties at Tsushima were?
  • That data seems to be rather scanty on any ship smaller than a BB.
• Can anything more be said about the ship between 1905 and 1914? For instance, was her status downgraded during this time as more modern ships entered service, and did she form part of the various iterations of the eight-eight fleet?
  • The time from 1905 to 1914 is a big lacunae for the histories of the Japanese ships unless they were obsolete enough to become training ships of one sort or another. I have nothing on how the introduction of the 8-8 fleet specifically affected Nisshin and her sister, only that all of the armored cruisers of the Russo-Japanese War gradually became second-line ships as the IJN finished the large armored cruisers of the Tsukuba-class and Ibuki-class and then the Kongo-class battlecruisers.
    • Could you add something on this? It's implied that the ship's status was downgraded over time (eg, from part of the battleline to trade protection duties), but this isn't clearly stated Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
      • None of my sources explicitly explain that, you have to read between the lines based on the deliveries of the more powerful ships after 1907, their taskings as cadet training ships and their deployments during WWI. As usual, the cruisers are covered in far less details than the more glamorous battleships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I just checked my copy of Kaigun and was surprised at how little there was on these ships. I'm pleased to now pass the review. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Please provide a URL for File:IJN Nisshin at Malta with U-boat.jpg in the IWM collection
  • It doesn't appear to be an IWM photo. Replaced.
• Location of publication is missing for Admirals of the World: A Biographical Dictionary, 1500 to the Present Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done and thanks for your thorough review. If I could, I would like your opinion, now that you're somewhat familiar with the ships, on if the existing Kasuga-class article should be merged into the overall Giuseppe Garibaldi-class cruiser article as the Japanese ships only differ in minor ways from the other ships of the class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: