Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano/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 Ian Rose 10:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano[edit]

Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shinano was begun as the third ship of the Yamato class, the largest battleships ever built, but was ordered converted into an aircraft carrier after most of the Imperial Japanese Navy's fleet carriers had been sunk during the Battle of Midway in June 1942. The ship was not intended to serve as a ordinary fleet carrier, but rather as a heavily armored support carrier on which aircraft from other carriers could be resupplied, repaired and new aircraft issued. Labor shortages delayed her completion in 1942–43 and a later order to speed up her up completion caused problems with quality control by the largely unskilled workforce. Shinano's shipyard was felt to be vulnerable to Allied attack in late 1944 and she was ordered to sail for a better-defended port to finish fitting out. She was attacked and sunk en route, the largest ship sunk by an American submarine, and the largest warship ever sunk, period. The article had a MilHist A-class review three weeks ago and I believe it is ready for FAC. I've tried to steer a course between too much and too little detail and would appreciate input from non-Ships reviewers on any missing details that need further explanation or vice versa.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- Hi Sturm, I know that your other current FAC is probably on the verge of closure but multiple noms are still supposed to be the exception rather than the rule, so pls let a delegate know you'd like to do it before going ahead next time... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments down to 'commissioning and sinking' Now support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's a "support carrier"? It's undefined in the lead.
    • I've deleted that bit from the lede.
  • I've added a whole host of missing commas.
  • "Furthermore, fire-fighting provisions in the hangars were grossly insufficient as they lacked a sprinkler system and any means to isolate sections of the hangars from one another." In Shinano or the older carriers?
    • This isn't made clear by the following sentence that explicitly says that Shinano was designed to eliminate these issues?
      • It is, but not if you're reading like a normal person—I'd put that bit before that information. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When describing the AA guns, you remark on the small magazine size twice, once in a quote.
    • Eliminated the quote.
  • "avgas" = aviation gas?
    • Good catch.
  • You go from fuel tanks straight to "Taihō and Shinano were the only Japanese aircraft carriers with armored flight decks." ?
    • Oops, I totally forgot to detail the thickness of her flight deck armor. I couldn't think of a neat transition to tie into the protection for the avgas, so I split it out into its own, very short paragraph. If anyone else has a good idea how to arrange things for better flow, I'm happy to take suggestions.
  • "but construction was expedited" -> "The builder was unable to increase the number of workers" so was it expedited in actuality, or was this ordered from on high but didn't actually happen? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing with the last one fresh in my mind. Back with substantive comments hopefully tomorrow or Friday.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • " built for the Imperial Japanese Navy" Shouldn't this be "by" rather than "for"? I see the builder was owned by the IJN.
  • " the ship was heavily modified to act" huh?
  • Ooops, legacy from a recent (incomplete) edit.
  • "Carrying an inexperienced crew coupled with serious design and construction flaws, the ship was not ready for combat" There's a slight mismatch here, it might work better if you began "As it carried an inexperienced crew, and had serious design …"
  • I think the lede should mention also the number of people who died, "including the captain, who went down with the ship".
  • Good idea.
Design etc.
  • "used by her half-sisters" perhaps "used by the earlier Yamato-class battleships". Or if you are going to keep it, move up the half-sister link.
  • Should have had the link there to begin with.
Construction etc.
  • "Even after being put in service," I think this could be safely deleted without loss of meaning.
  • Agreed.
  • "aircraft of the IJN" I think the direct "IJN aircraft" works fine.
  • I am not quite getting this. The ship was not expected to be finished until 1945, originally, but by reducing the construction staff, it would be afloat by 1942? I guess the idea would be to get it afloat, free up the drydock, and finish it somewhere else, but I think a little more explanation is required here.
  • Rephrased it a bit, hopefully to clarify things. See how it reads now.
  • " Despite her enormous size" It may not be apparent to the lay reader why the size is an issue. Is the implication that the size made it unsuitable as a support carrier or more suitable as a combat carrier?
  • Actually I think that the fact that most of her armor had already been installed limited what changes could be economically made to the ship, rather than her size itself. So I've deleted the bit about size.
Flight deck etc.
  • "modeled on that fitted on Taihō, ... Much like the earlier Taiho design" Consistency in rendering of Taiho. I see further issues up ahead with this, please check the whole article.
  • Good catch, done.
  • "Portable canvas wind scoops could also be rigged over the elevator opening to force more air inside." What does the word "portable" add? The sentence already implies they are removable.
  • Indeed it does.
Launching
  • "led to lack of quality control and poor workmanship by the workforce." Is any meaning lost by simply saying "led to poor workmanship"? After all, it's implied it was by the workforce, and lack of quality control tends to result in poor workmanship, as a rule.
  • True.
  • A mention of the anticipated length in time (and distance, perhaps) between Yokosuke and Kure might be useful to the reader.
  • Added.
  • Besides the kamikazes, were planes aboard?
  • Nope, added.
  • Perhaps the location of the sinking should be related to a land point, presumably in Japan.
  • I've added a distance from land, but a geographical point isn't readily available.
Postwar
  • I don't like "Also," and "In addition," beginning consecutive sentences. I would simply delete one or the other, or bury "also" in the sentences.
  • OK.
Excellently done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking this over so closely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to. Your changes look satisfactory, changing to support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't include quote-terminal ellipses
  • Why include date in Chesneau short cites?
  • Holtzman or Holtzworth?
  • Location for Preston? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All fixed, Nikki. Thanks for your usual thorough job.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few more for source review

  • Location missing on the Enright book
  • Just placing a note here: the Tully link had me a bit suspicious for a bit, but I see that he's a published author on the subject at hand, so I'm satisfied with its inclusion.
  • ISBNs look good. Ruby 2010/2013 04:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for catching the missing location. You'd think after all the publisher locations that I've requested that people add, I might actually remember to do it for my own articles. I think this is what being hoisted on my own petard feels like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is an excellent article. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • Can a simpler term than "civilian photographic technician" be used? (eg, a "government photographer"?) - as a random side note, I really should get around to writing an article on the remarkable 1 November photo recon sortie over the Tokyo region
    • Good idea. What was so special about that recon mission?
      • The single recon B-29 was made the first Allied flight over the Tokyo region since the Doolittle Raid, evaded attacks by hundreds of fighters (most of which were unable to reach its operating altitude), encountered an incredibly rare clear day and took excellent photos of the entire region (who's features were suprisingly little-known to American planners). It was by far the most successful photo recon sortie of the campaign against the Home Islands, and possibly the war. Something for my summer to-do list! Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ships had a designed speed of 27 knots" - is it OK to assume that this carrier would have ended up having the same speed as her battleship half-sisters given the differences in the design?
    • It would certainly be in that ballpark given that nothing changed regarding the ship's propulsion system and hull form. I suppose the real issue would have been if the hull was as deeply immersed as her half-sisters, but even that probably would not have changed much since her displacement was about 90-odd percent of their displacement.
  • The short para starting with "Taihō and Shinano were the only Japanese aircraft carriers with armored flight decks" reads like an aside - could this material be moved into the para on the flight deck?
    • Integrated that into the flight deck section, where it sort of was already. Not real happy with the phrasing so feel free to suggest alternatives.
  • The ordering of the sentences in the para which starts with "The investigation into the loss of Taihō" seems to be around the wrong way: I'd suggest leading in with a description of the cofferdam and then note that this scheme didn't work
    • I've struggled with this paragraph for the longest time; see how it reads now and feel free to make suggestions.
  • Do we know where the carrier's crew were drawn from? Were they survivors of other carriers? (I appreciate that sources on this kind of topic are thin on the ground though)
    • Like you expected, no info in any of my sources.
  • Clay Blair notes in Silent Victory that Enright claimed to have sunk a 28,000 ton "Hayatake class carrier", and encountered scepticism over this as the American code breakers hadn't detected Shinano's construction and were confident that they knew the locations of all the remaining carriers (he was credited with this sinking after he submitted convincing drawings of what he'd seen, and the credit was "upgraded" to Shinano after the war) - is some or all of this worth adding to the article? The interesting thing is that Enright was in the right place at the right time, and wasn't acting on any kind of intelligence. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's probably actually worth adding. Lemme hunt down a copy of Blair and add it. Enright discusses it, but my copy is an .epub with unreliable page numbers and harder to use for cites. Thanks for looking this over so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just tweaked this so that it flows better (I think) and added some extra details. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2013 (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_Shinano/archive1&oldid=1079393913"