Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō

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.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

This ship was one of the first Japanese light aircraft carriers and was a textbook example of the Japanese habit of trying to cram a quart into a pint pot. In service she proved top-heavy and unstable and had to be refitted to ameliorate those issues. She spent the first part of the Pacific War supporting Japanese troops during the Malayan and Philippines Campaigns. During the Indian Ocean raid she operated separately from the Kido Butai, supporting Japanese cruisers attacking British shipping in the Bay of Bengal. The carrier participated in the attack on Dutch Harbor in June 1942 and was sunk during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons later that year.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Infobox
- Cited length figure is different than infobox figure
  - Good catch.
- Probably more accurate that the ship had virtually no armor, maybe specify it did not have an armored flight deck, hangar deck or belt (that's what I read that meant...).
  - I think that the current language is good enough. I'm not even sure if the Japanese even considered protective plating as armor as opposed to simply doubling structural steel or whatever they actually did.
Add the Hiryū language for naming somewhere.
- Done.
"The ships were bombed several times by B-17s without effect..." - maybe reword this that multiple B-17s dropped bombs that missed the ship. Kirk (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)\[reply]
  - I don't understand why you are using the phrase 'without effect' -is this technical jargon? What would 'with effect' mean? I would switch this to plain english. Kirk (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - With effect would mean that they caused some damage either by splinters/shock from near-misses or actual hits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor points:

"and was back in the shipyard for modifications to address those issues within a year" - hard to tell which year this was, as the lead talks about her being built "in the 1930s"
- The details are in the main body, but the emphasis here is how quickly she needed to be modified so I'm not sure that the exact year is important.
"Because of the need to keep Ryūjō's weight to 8,000 metric tons, no armor could be provided," > "No armor could be provided because of the need to keep Ryūjō's weight to 8,000 metric tons," would make the sentence more direct, and avoid starting with a "because"
- Good idea.
"She was also designed with only a single hangar, which would have left her with an extremely low profile (there being just 4.6 meters (15 ft 1 in) of freeboard amidships and 3.0 meters (9 ft 10 in) aft)." - I couldn't visualise/understand this on first reading, possibly because I'm not familiar with hangars being stacked, or what freeboard meant!
- I'm not sure how to respond to this since freeboard is linked.
"Her air group now consisted of a mixture of B3Y1 torpedo bombers, D1A1 dive bombers and A2N fighters, but her torpedo bombers were transferred after fleet maneuvers in October demonstrated effective dive bombing tactics." - I wasn't clear why the dive bombers being successful would mean that the torpedo bombers needed to be removed.
- My source isn't clear why the torpedo bombers were transferred, just that they were.
"The disabled Ryujo (just right of center)..." I couldn't make out the ships on this until I blew it up somewhat larger. Is it worth circling or highlighting the ships in some way on an amended image? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploaded cropped version. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed at GA in September and have had a look of the revisions that have been made since them and believe it also meets the A class criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.