Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū[edit]

Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soryu was the first purpose-designed large carrier built by the Imperial Japanese Navy and had a very active career before being sunk in the Battle of Midway in June 1942. She, and her aircraft, participated in the Second Sino-Japanese War and the invasion of French Indochina before the beginning of the Pacific War. During that conflict she participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the attack on Wake Island before she headed to Southeast Asia to support Japanese operations there. Her aircraft helped to sink numerous British ships during the Indian Ocean raid in April 1942 before she returned to Japan to prepare for the attack on Midway Atoll. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review and I believe that it's ready for FAC. I look forward to working with reviewers that identify any weaknesses and hope to get some non-ship specialist reviewers to ensure that general concepts and jargon are properly explained.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Soryu_1938.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • No evidence that it has been published since it's in the museum archives.
  • File:Jap_planes_preparing-Pearl_Harbor.jpg: how could this possibly have been taken by Navy personnel? That doesn't make sense
    • There's no tag for war booty; photos that were seized by the American military after surrender.
  • File:Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Soryu_02_cropped.jpg: source is tagged as lacking author info and has an error message. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source link worked just fine for me. Not knowledgeable enough about the template to fix whatever it is that's generating the message.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great article. Might it be worthwhile to compare the "minimally armored" Soryu against other, more-armored Japanese aircraft carriers? Just so readers unfamiliar with naval ships get an idea of what decent armor is. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a bad idea; added comparable figures for Hiryu. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is nothing more known about the Yangtze River operations? It's a tantalisingly incomplete nugget in an otherwise stunningly good article. --John (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very little more is known to me in English. I added a bit about the air group's movements and primary role during the campaign as well as the commitment of a Soviet expeditionary air group there. See how it reads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written, well-sourced, looks complete to me. Nice work. --John (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I copyedited and supported on prose, level of detail, referencing, structure and supporting materials at the article's MilHist A-Class Review and, having checked changes made since then, I'm satisfied it's FA-worthy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Could the first sentence of the last paragraph be reworded? It mentions 'Japan' three times and 'defeat' twice.
  • Done.
  • As per WP:MOS, I understood that numbers from 1 to 9 are expressed in words rather than numbers. Thus, for example, rather than, 'A Wildcat escorting VT-3 shot down 1 of her Zeros.' I believe this should say, 'A Wildcat escorting VT-3 shot down one of her Zeros.' Sandbh (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, see WP:Numeral: Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get it. Where are the comparable quantities? A few more examples which I find confusing:
'Their maximum rate of fire was 14 rounds a minute, but their sustained rate of fire was around eight rounds per minute.' Why is eight spelled out? Should it not be a figure?
That's a fair cop, guv. I'll fix it momentarily.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Sōryū contributed eighteen B3Ns and nine Zeros to the force.' Why is 18 spelled out?
Because they're comparable quantities of airplanes.
Aiee! The number/figure guidelines are driving me spare.
Join the club. They're very easy to miss, hence you finding several despite multiple reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'The carrier also contributed 3 Zeros to the total of 11 assigned to the initial CAP over the four carriers.' Why is 11 a number?
Again, comparable quantities of airplanes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this one should read, 'The carrier also contributed three Zeros to the total of eleven assigned to the initial CAP over the four carriers.'
Why? As I see things it could go either way, depending on what else in used in the paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS says figures from one to nine are spelled out. Comparable quantities then requires the eleven to be spelled out. Sandbh (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it that way. Seems to me that the editor can decide which way to go. Doesn't make sense to me that one use of a number below ten outweighs 15 usages of numbers above. Either way the MOS is ambiguous on this issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ambiguity in MOS on this topic. Numbers from 1 to 9 are spelt out (with exceptions noted in MOS). Higher numbers can be figures or words as long as there is consistency in the article. Comparable values means that when there are both kinds of numbers involved (i.e. those from 1–9, and 10+) all the numbers will need to be expressed in words, as long as they can be written in no more than two words. From what I can see of Parshall & Tully they take the same approach, with the acceptable exceptions of percentages and gun calibre. I'd be happy to the do edits if you like. Or feel free to explain where the ambiguity is in MOS. Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're equal bullets so have equal weight. If this exercises you so much then feel free to switch them to match your interpretation, but I won't bother.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'The three airborne CAP Zeros were landing aboard at 09:30 when the Americans unsuccessfully attempted a torpedo attack on Soryū, but three of the morning's escort fighters were still airborne and joined the 18 CAP fighters in destroying Waldron's planes.' Why are the 3's spelt out? Sandbh (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another fair cop.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Don't forget my original "don't get it" response. Where are the comparable quantities in 'A Wildcat escorting VT-3 shot down 1 of her Zeros'? that warrant '1' being shown as a figure rather than a word? Sandbh (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look elsewhere in the paragraph, I standardized comparable quantities across paragraphs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparable quantities doesn't take precedence over expressing numbers from one to nine, in words. The numbers in the paragraph between one and nine should be expressed in words. Comparable quantities then requires the start of the paragraph to read, 'Shortly afterwards, fourteen Devastators...' rather than 'Shortly afterwards, 14 Devastators...'. Sandbh (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, see above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have a look at this passage too, as there seem to be some number/figure inconsistencies: 'The two carriers reached the vicinity of the island on 21 December and launched 29 D3As and 2 B2Ns, escorted by 18 Zeros, to attack ground targets. They encountered no aerial opposition and launched 35 B5Ns and 6 A6M Zeros the following day. They were intercepted by the 2 surviving Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters of Marine Fighter Squadron VMF-211. The Wildcats shot down two B5Ns before they were shot down themselves by the Zeros. The garrison surrendered the next day after Japanese troops were landed.' Sandbh (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this sentence: 'Also aboard were 3 A6Ms of the 6th Kokutai intended as the aerial garrison for Midway.' How could a puny 3 A6Ms possibly act as an aerial garrison for Midway? Sandbh (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few others scattered aboard the other carriers, IIRC, but a garrison doesn't have a specified size. I think that you understand it just fine, but don't believe that that's what the Japanese intended with such a small number.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Parshall & Tully (p. 90) explain: twelve of the intended garrison support fighters were on Junyo with the Second Carrier Striking Force; the remainder were assigned to Nagumo's carriers: Akagi had six; Kagu had nine; Hiryu and Soryu three apience: total intended garrison = 33. Perhaps a note could be added to the sentence to clarify this or adjust the expression 'intended as the aerial garrison for Midway.' Sandbh (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • "In contrast to some earlier Japanese carriers, which were conversions of battlecruiser and battleship hulls (Akagi and Kaga, respectively), Sōryū was designed from the keel up as an aircraft carrier and incorporated lessons learned from the light carrier Ryūjō." - I'd have gone for "In contrast to some earlier Japanese carriers, such as Akagi and Kaga, which were conversions of battlecruiser and battleship hulls respectively, Sōryū was designed from the keel up as an aircraft carrier and incorporated lessons learned from the light carrier Ryūjō." - it would dodge the brackets and make the flow a little easier.
    • Good idea.
  • "The ship's power and slim, cruiser-type hull with a length-to-beam ratio of 10:1 gave her a speed of 34.5 knots (63.9 km/h; 39.7 mph)" - I'd have gone for commas after hull and 10:1.
    • Fine by me.
  • "The boiler uptakes were trunked to the ship's starboard side amidships" - I'm not 100% sure I know what a boiler uptake is, or what it means for them to be trunked.
    • Linked.
  • " "Blue (or Green) Dragon" - I wasn't sure what this meant (is the Japanese for Blue and Green the same?)
    • See the link in the lede. Short answer, not so much.
  • "They sank the oil tanker British Sergeant and the Norwegian cargo ship Norviken before they were attacked by 8 Fulmars of 803 and 806 Naval Air Squadrons...." Worth checking that the article is keeping to the MOS on numbers as text/digits here, as I think this should be "eight Fulmars" etc. (NB: have just seen the debate above. I personally think the spirit of the MOS would still have this as text; the "1 Zero" does read oddly to me, for example)
    • I flipped everything over to spelling them out in this para.
  • " To this day there is much confusion about VMSB-241 at Midway. " - I think the MOS discourages "To this day..." Hchc2009 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're correct in that the MOS requires specific language, but I think that this is still OK, regardless. It doesn't weasel, but emphasizes that sources will often give contradictory info on what that squadron flew during the battle. Thanks for reviewing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Sōryū/archive1&oldid=596753761"