Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Amagi-class battlecruiser

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amagi class battlecruiser[edit]

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk), the ed17 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1

Ed and I created this article in January, and it passed GA at the end of the month. We temporarily back-burnered it while we completed other projects, but we feel the article is at least close to A-class, if not already there. We appreciate any and all comments towards improving the article. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~:

Quick one for now, I'll do some more tomorrow. Would suggest moving one of the photos from the bottom of the article to the infobox to get rid of that ugly 'No Free Photo' text. Skinny87 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I hadn't put one of the two lower photos in the infobox is that it's not really representative of the topic (i.e., it shows the Akagi after her conversion, not what she would have looked like as a battlecruiser). There are a couple of line drawings floating around (one at Global Security, and one in Conway's), but I'm not sure if either one would qualify for fair-use. Parsecboy (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the 10 requirements of fair-use would be met here; it's not like a free alternative exists, and any "free" one made from Conway's or anything else would be a derivative work. So, going on this assumption, we have three choices:

Global Security, in color and clear but very boxy.
Conway's, which is good except that it is really faded.
Whatever this site is, which is the best print. Problem is, it's not reliable for sure. Can we say that it is o.k. because it is similar to Conway's? (I mean, what are the major differences between that and the line drawing in Conway's? ...actually, I think that they copied Conway's, but that's a whole different boat.) Regardless, it's nearly identical to Conway's and it's much clearer. Thoughts? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a scanner, let me scan up the version in Conway's, and we'll go from there. Parsecboy (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that would be helpful. :) I was thinking of hitting 'print screen' on the Google Books page. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it took me a while to get it to scan correctly (it's always a pain trying to scan from a thick book), but here it is. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'm going to crop it a bit to focus more on the ship and eliminate some of the white, but that should do fine. Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments:

In the Design section, there's a lot of repetition of 'would have had' - could you try and vary this in places? For example, 'It was planned' and that sort of thing
- I reworded the section to remove most of the "would have"s, let us know if there's any more repetition. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot more detail on its service during WWII; masses has been written on Midway, and this article needs a bit more on the service of Akagi, especially during Midway. For example, how she was sunk, if she sank any vessels in return, how well she performed. Skinny87 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well...I don't know. When I wrote that, I just wanted a short tidbit of info on Akagi because this is the article on the battlecruiser class, not the aircraft carrier class. I'll add a hatnote though. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, my bad; I should have made the distinction, I apologize. Is there a seperate article for the aircraft carrier class then? Skinny87 (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when there's just one of a ship (as there was in the case of Akagi), it usually doesn't have a class article. All of the technical data that would go in the class article is just placed in the ship article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can't say fairer than that! Move to support. Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article considering the dearth of information available. – Joe N utter 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well-written article. The background section especially does a good job at concisely but fully detailing the related Imperial Japanese Navy history related to the subject. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The most important conflict it participated in, WWII, is covered by half a para near the end. It should be expanded at least into its own section, summarizing the history of Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi. The article has no information on where exactly the ship was sunk (there should be at least some geotag estimates), and it has insufficient categories (it has only one category, "Ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy"). Until this is corrected, it is not ready for A-class.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, none of these battlecruisers were built. The carrier Amagi that was built was of a different class, the only thing in common being the name. The Akagi is covered in its own article. Cla68 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What Cla said - see Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi for the history of the ship as an aircraft carrier and both Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi and Unryū-class aircraft carrier for the later Amagi. The short blurb on Akagi is for convenience; concievably, we could just end the article at the conversion and say "for the remaining history of Akagi, see Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point, but the article doesn't make it very clear. I still think that a separate section summarizing the hull career as a carrier would be helpful. It's not like the article is too long, is it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I sectioned off and expanded Akagi's service career as a carrier, does that look better? Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If it's not enough, please wait for a little bit so that I can get a chance to add in info from Samuel Eliot Morison's The Rising Sun in the Pacific. I'm going home for the weekend, so my on-wiki time will be limited. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Under the circumstances the article is quite well written, and appears to be on the same level as the article on the Montana class battleships , so I think that all will be well. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comments for FAC, if you're going there

Please rephrase "The planned fuel stores amounted to 3,900 tons of oil and 2,500 tons of coal; at a speed of 14 kts, this would have enabled a maximum range of 8,000 nautical miles" as it doesn't scan easily.
- I reworded it, does it read better now?
I am not familiar with the [A 1] citation convention and have not seen it elsewhere. Maybe it should be avoided in favour of "conventional" citations.
- The actual citations are in the standard format; the [A 1] footnotes that explain things in the text (like the one that explains what "caliber" means, since the usual meaning of the word is the diameter of a tube, not its length)
Suggest change "The guns fired 2,205 lbs. (1,000 kg) armor-piercing projectiles with a propellant charge weighing 494 lbs." to "with a 494lb propellant charge"
- Done.
The use of lbs. is clumsy. I would suggest auto-convert with 494 pounds (224 kg) (see source): that is clearly MOS.
- Done.
"Four—later increased to six—" -> "Four, later increased to six,..."
- Done
"depression down to -5 degrees and elevation to 30 degrees." -> should be " had a depression of... and elevation of..." (as far as I know). Wikilink for clarity.
- Fixed the wording, and linked to Elevation (ballistics); there's no corresponding article for depression.
Wikilink superfiring or equivalent. If not linked previously, rate of fire, battery, centreline, superstructure, barbettes and anything else remotely unfamiliar or nautical should be wikilinked. TomStar ran into problems with this on Montana Class during FAC due to authors unfamiliar with the subject.
- Those words that have articles or sections in articles have been linked.
"This design proved unsatisfactory, and so in 1937, the ship was withdrawn for a massive reconstruction in 1935–38." -> "This design proved unsatisfactory (WHY?), and in 1937 the ship was withdrawn for massive reconstruction from 1935 to 1938." (How was it withdrawn while being 'massively reconstructed'?) 'Massive' (originally meaning having great weight) is not ideal wording for an encyclopedia.
- I'll see what I can find as to why exactly the 3-deck configuration was unsatisfactory (I'd assume it was too complicated for fast operations). I fixed the year and removed "massive".
I feel that 'Career as an aircraft carrier' is perhaps too long. Consider cutting it down to major actions and fate. Akagi has its own article.
- Maybe discuss that with Piotrus :) He had stated that the Akagi service history bit was too short (see this version, where it was incorporated into the Construction, cancellation, and conversion section).
There is an interesting factoid about the name in the Akagi article that could be included here.

Good work, I hope you guys run out of cancelled ship designs one day so the landlubbers can benefit from your (collective) skill and experience. Dhatfield (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll look into adding the name bit into the article. I don't think we'll run out of canceled and proposed ships anytime soon :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.