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

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.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


Sōryū was the third fleet carrier built for the IJN and participated in the Second Sino-Japanese War and the early stages of the Pacific War before being sunk during the Battle of Midway. I believe that I've incorporated all of the comments from the recent Japanese carrier ACRs and FACs, but I hope that y'all will point out any omissions or needed clarifications.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Copyedited as I went, hopefully not breaking anything; outstanding points:
    • "Sōryū was fitted with four geared steam turbine sets" -- not sure of the significance of "set" means here; can we just say "four geared steam turbines", as that's what's in the infobox...?
      • Sources say sets, so infobox changed to match.
    • Consistency re. numerical presentation? Compare "18 Zeros and nine D3As" with "18 B5Ns, 18 D3As, and 9 Zeros"...
      • I did kinda forget to go back in and fix all of these, didn't I?
  • No dup or dab links.
  • This is primarily a prose review but structure, detail, and image licensing look fine to me.
  • I haven't done a source review as such but the refs look reliable to me -- well done as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
    • External links checks out [2] (no action req'd).
    • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
    • Images all appear to be PD and have req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine to me (no action req'd).
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
    • A couple of duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • Hainan Island
      • magazine
    • "6,000 kg (13,000 lb) aircraft" probably req's a hyphen as an adjective.
      • Not when abbreviated.
    • Repetitive language here: "... maximum ceiling of 9,440 meters (30,970 ft) at their maximum elevation of +90 degrees. Their maximum ..." (maximum three times in close proximity. Perhaps reword one/some?
      • Good idea.
    • Some inconsistency throughout the article in the presentation of figures under 10 per MOS:NUMERAL, for example "the 2 surviving Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters" vs "departed four days later for the Dutch East Indies..." (aren't these all meant to be written in words, i.e. two not 2?)
      • Not always, quantities of like things should be consistent which overrules the bullet that you're talking about; within paragraphs aircraft use one or the other, not both numbers and words.
    • repetitive language here: "16 Marine Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers of Marine Scout Bomber Squadron (VMSB-241)..." (Marine used twice). Suggest deleting the first instance.
      • Agreed
    • "13 Dauntlesses from Bombing Squadron 2 (VB-2) from the Yorktown...", Yorktown should be wikilinked at first use in the body of the article (not here). Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments
    • Any way we can get English translations for File:Japanese aircraft carrier Soryu 1938.jpg and File:Japanese aircraft carrier Soryu 1937.jpg?
    • The license for File:Fantail Soryu.jpg isn't correct, since it wasn't taken by a USN employee. Same with File:Jap planes preparing-Pearl Harbor.jpg.
      • What would you suggest I use given that there's no license for war booty photos as this obviously is? PD-1996? I've already had one Luftwaffe reconnaissance photo of Kronstadt booted from Commons and reloaded onto en.wiki by some Commons asshole because it supposedly lacked an appropriate license in Germany. We're fortunate that the Japanese PD law is more liberal and doesn't cause any problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, it should at least be PD-1996 since it would have entered PD then anyway. And yeah, Commons can be a pain in the ass. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might be worthwhile to point out in the lead that she was the first fleet carrier built from the keel up as a carrier in Japan.
      • I don't think that the IJN actually classified their carriers in the Western style so I'm a little leery of drawing that distinction given that Hosho was the first carrier (of any type) built from the keel up as a carrier in Japan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough.
    • Why are some aircraft given their Allied codenames but others aren't (i.e., Claude, for the A5M but not Susie for the D1A2)?
    • "Kido Butai" is italicized in the lead but not in the Construction and service section.
    • Check for overlinking - Hainan Island is linked twice in the second para of the Construction and service section.
    • Make clear that the aircraft discussed in the first and second waves were just Soryu's contingent - it might appear to some readers that these were the only aircraft in the waves
    • Link flying boat
      • Butting in, I think I removed that link during my copyedit, reason being that both times it's used we have the make/model of flying boat linked immediately before, which is the key thing. I think adjacent links should be avoided where feasible, and in the first use here we have Qantas linked immediately before Short Empire, immediately before flying boat, which made it a real sea of blue before I removed the last. While we're here, I also wouldn't link a ship type (e.g. aircraft carrier) adjacent to the ship name, or a rank adjacent to a person's name, assuming the person is notable and has a WP article; if the person isn't notable but the name is mentioned, by all means link the rank subject to 'first use' guidelines. End of rant... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a fair point - I didn't realize Qantas and Short Empire were separate links - guess I wasn't paying close enough attention ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do try to avoid three links in a row to avoid the "sea of blue". But I will say that I do try and link ship types and ranks on first use, even if they're adjacent to a link for the ship or person. I think that it's especially important to do for that superflexible word captain as it's an army rank, navy rank and a position on a ship and you need to clarify exactly which one you're using.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well I'd at least concede the value of linking Captain (or Lieutenant) for the reason you've stated if the service wasn't clear from surrounding text... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Later that day they sank the oil tanker USS Pecos." - the "they" is unclear since it could refer to the D3As or the cruisers in the previous sentence.
    • "After launching the D3As that sank Hermes and the other ships..." - I'm confused - do you mean "recovering" the D3As? If not, what happened to the aircraft after the carriers left?
      • I struggled on how to word this. The ships turned about after launching the aircraft, which meant that they had to fly the extra distance before recovering. Is it clearer now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does this wording sound? What you had made it sound like they didn't recover their aircraft until they reached Japan ;)
    • "Doolittle raids"?
    • Something of an aside - my understanding was that it wasn't so much the loss of the aircrews (since most of them survived to be ground to dust in the Solomons campaign) that was so crushing for the IJN, it was the loss of the mechanics/technicians/etc. But I forget where I read that. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might have been Shattered Sword; it's true generally, but Soryu had the highest losses of any carrier at Midway so it's pretty safe to say that a lot of her aviation support types died. Thanks for looking this over, I think that I've addressed everything that you listed above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Sōryū&oldid=592774269"