Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Kongō

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 07:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese battleship Kongō[edit]

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)(Prof)
Toolbox

Kongō was the first fully-modern battlecruiser of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the last capital ship they had constructed outside of Japan (built by Vickers in England). This article has gradually undergone a rewrite over the last few weeks. Passed its GA earlier this week (thanks to Jim Sweeney for reviewing it), and has had some minor copyediting done since. I believe it meets the A-Class Requirements. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support, with some commentary below,
  • The lead image is the same as the one for the class's article. Perhaps it would be better to interchange it with another image from the article?
Working on that. Cla68 has promised photo uploads. Once they're here, I'll shift the images around significantly. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 16 August 1913, Kongō was completed and formally commissioned into the Imperial Japanese Navy. Twelve days later, she departed Portsmouth for Japan. — Not that important, but formerly it's written that the Kongō was laid down at Barrow-in-Furness. Was the ship commissioned in Portsmouth? When did she move from the former to the latter?
We must assume fitting out happened at Porstmouth, though none of my sources say when. I've added a note that she transferred to Portsmouth for fitting out. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 3 October 1915,Kongō and Hiei participated in the target-sinking of Imperator Nikolai I, a Russian pre-dreadnought captured in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War that had subsequently served as a Japanese battleship. — To a non-layman such as myself this sentence actually came off as slightly confusing. I don't know what target-sinking is (well, after looking up the article for Imperator Nikolai I I was able to guess), so while it's clear that the article had been captured by the Japanese in 1905 this is only after you mention target-sinking. So, for someone with no prior knowledge on the topic, it seems as if the Japanese sunk a Russian ship (although, the Japanese and Russians were not at war), and only then does it specify that it had been captured by the Japanese. Like the last comment, this is borderline ridiculous, but I figure any detail is worth mentioning if it's unearthed.
I understand what your issue is, but I have to confess that I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. Prose-wise, I think this is the best we can do without getting into the overly-convoluted minutia of Imperator Nikolai I and the Russo-Japanese War. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the defeat of the German East Asia Squadron by the Royal Navy at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914, the need for combat operations by the Japanese Navy lessened" — The second part of the sentence doesn't read well to me. Perhaps it should read, "...there was a lesser need for Japanese naval operations in the Pacific." I'm not sure, I've never been good with these type of things.
Changed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excepting the above pedantry, this reads like a great article and certainly within the guidelines of milhist's a-class.

JonCatalán(Talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the caveat that I have had some previous input to the article.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Launched on 18 May 1912 before transferring to Portsmouth, Kongō's fitting-out began in the summer of 1912.[6]" I assume that is Portsmouth, England? If so, can we wikilink that? Bonewah (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC) --I went ahead and fixed that as I found a wikilink for Portsmouth later in the article, so I moved it to the first appearance. Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"By, Kongō's secondary armament was reconfigured to eight 6-inch (15 cm) guns, eight 5-inch (13 cm) guns, and one hundred and twenty-two Type 96 antiaircraft autocannon.[12]" By what? Some date I would guess. Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved Questions

  • We usually don't mention Sanskrit word origins ("vajra"), but if the Sanskrit word is particularly relevant to the Japanese word and you want to include it, then it would be best to explain the relevance. Btw, Conway's (p. 234) says that all 4 ships in the class were named after mountains, but it doesn't say which mountains; can anyone confirm or deny, and if true, do we have a link for the namesake? - Dank (push to talk)
I included this particular one here because this one wasn't named for a mountain, though Haruna was (which I mentioned in that article). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they have been called the battlecruiser versions of the British (formerly Turkish) battleship HMS Erin." Conway's says: "The design is usually described as a battlecruiser version of [Erin]." Should we always attribute it when a noted author says some variant of "People say such-and-such"? Anyone? This language was in Japanese battleship Haruna, which passed FA recently. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note, FYI: Chicago (16th edition) is now out, and it's very influential among publishers. They're recommending "US" instead of "U.S." (and UK, and two-letter state abbreviations). Many people follow the 2009 AP though, which recommends "U.S." in text and "US" in headlines. "US" is much more common outside the US. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
updated to 16th ed style. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there's this much text repeated from a sister ship's article (Haruna), some will suggest that a hard look is needed to see if we can move the overlapping text to the class article. I don't have a position. - Dank (push to talk)
In the cases where it's repeated, it's because they did the same stuff. I figured it was a waste of time to rewrite entirely when they were involved in the same action. Hiei and Kirishima mostly operated together, while Kongo and Haruna deployed in a pair. I figure keep it in each ship article. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For stuff that this ship has in common with Haruna but not with the others, I agree, repeat it in the two ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC we decided at Haruna's FAC that muzzle flash is not a great link for "flash"; I'm not sure that we know what "flash tightness" is supposed to mean. Let's either find out, or lose it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Forgot about that. I think we've dug this issue endlessly w/o success. I'll lose it. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with "First Reserve"; a quick definition or a link would be nice. Or, "reserve" would work. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your source says "The thickness of KONGO's horizontal armor over her magazines and machinery spaces is increased." That's different from "Kongō's horizontal armor near her ammunition magazines was strengthened, and the machinery spaces within the hull were increased." Is there a different source that supports your statement? - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's back in Ottawa at the moment. I'll have it by Tuesday. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K, source 2 says armour over machinery was increased, not machinery itself. My bad. I'll change it. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 21:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching quickly through for "Kongō" gives me a lot of hits ... that sometimes means it would be better to replace some of them with "the ship" or "the battlecruiser" or "she". - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to change. I'll see what I can do. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kongō bombarded Christmas Island on 7 March 1942, then returned to Staring-baai for 15 days of maintenance and rest.": not clear whether the ship or the crew is resting. The source says "Although on standby alert ..., the crews are allowed some rest and relaxation." "Rest" seems too informal to me ... maybe "15 days leave on standby alert"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Changed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suffered several near misses but remained undamaged": a ship can "suffer" near misses if it's damaged by shell fragments, but "suffer" is the wrong word if there's no damage. - Dank (push to talk) 05:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Escort-Carrier Group they happened upon. I've reworded it to be more specific. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the quote marks off "numerous hits"; if you add them back, direct quotes require a citation at the end of the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. My bad. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done with copyediting for now. - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... dry-docked for a large reconfiguration of her anti-aircraft suite. Four 6-inch guns and a pair of twin 25-mm mounts were removed ...": Not wrong, but I don't usually hear "large reconfiguration", since "large" could possibly mean anything from replacing 20% to replacing 100%. If "most" (say 50% to 75%) of the anti-aircraft guns were replaced, it would be better to say that. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
removed "large" from the sentence. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "separate dyes were introduced for the armor-piercing shells of the four Kongo-class battleships": any idea why? - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of radar fire-control, it made targetting easier, especially in large surface-actions, since you could tell which shells were being fired by your guns. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like everything is done except for finding a source for "the machinery spaces within the hull were increased", or rewording that in line with the ref you've got. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per usual disclaimer. Everything's been resolved, nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

There's numerous inconsistencies with the armaments and Conway; I would reference Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-1946 p. 173 for the WWII stats, and I think you could add another heading for the 1937 refit. The secondary armamaent was originally 16 6" guns (16x1) not (8x2) & it appears most were replaced by 5" DP guns by 1944. Kirk (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've used Stille's accounts of armament changes for the kongos, since those are the ones I have access to on a permanent basis. Fixed the 8x2 mistake. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • in the 1942: Early War Service section, this sentence needs a citation: "On 20 September, the fleet was ordered to return to Truk Naval Base in the Caroline Islands (now Micronesia)."
    • I think that the subsection headings are not correctly capitalised in the Service section. For instance I think "1942: Early War Service" should be "1942: Early war service";
      • They seem to have all been fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • sometimes you use spaced endashes (e.g in the 1942: Early War Service section) and then unspaced emdashes (e.g. 1929–1935: Reconstruction section). These should be consistent;
    • Boyle appears in the Citations but not in the References;
    • some of the citations have years but some don't - is there a reason for this?
      • The ones by multiple authors usually
        • Okay, I'd suggest making it all uniform, but it is not really a major drama. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in Citation # 4 you have "Parshall, Jon; Bob Hacket..." in italics but in Citation # 5 and 8 you don't;
    • are Parshall, Hacket etc the authors of the website? If they are they shouldn't be presented as they are which currently makes it look like they are the publishers (or in one instance that they are the Work that the page is a part of);
    • Morison appears in the References but you don't appear to specifically cite the work;
    • same as above for the work by Frank;
    • same as above for Moore;
    • the Advisor script reports a possible error with the ISBNs for the Schom and Wilmot works;
      • Both fixed
    • here is an inconsistent representation of accessdates (i.e "Retrieved 2010-09-10" and "Retrieved 26 February 2009"AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe fixed
  • Can you please check my last couple of unstruck comments above? Otherwise looks fine and I'd be happy to support. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Japanese_battleship_Kongō&oldid=392176122"