Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Ise

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 by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Japanese battleship Ise[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Japanese battleship Ise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Built during World War I, Ise didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Ise's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and consistency in English styles in preparation for a FAC. I've updated this recent GA with the comments from her sister ship Hyuga's ACR and ongoing FAC, so I believe that this article meets the A-class criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Vami_IV[edit]

  • Ise (伊勢 (戦艦)). I am not literate in Japanese at the slightest - what's the difference between the two sets of characters? This should have something like what's present here here, which has the kanji name and links to the respective systems for naming.
    • 伊勢 [Ise] refers to the battleship name, meanwhile 戦艦 [senkan] refers to "battleship". So, 伊勢 (戦艦) is "Ise (battleship)" in English. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, cool. I asked that because that information should be in the lead. –Vami_IV✠ 20:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • This prompted me to learn something about the nihongo template which I'd never looked at before, so see if it satisfies now.
  • Still in the lead (last sentence): Was Ise scrapped in situ or raised to be scrapped somewhere else?
    • In place, but details like that are best reserved for the main body.
  • I feel the first two paragraphs in "Armaments" can and should be condensed into one.
    • Sure, I don't feel strongly about it one way or another.
  • I advocate for Ise, named being Ise was named in the first sentence of "Construction and Career" so as to streamline the sentence and remove an unnecessary comma.
    • But the comma is necessary to demarcate the subordinate clause. Otherwise we'd have: "Ise was named after Hyūga Province, one of the traditional provinces of Japan, was laid down..." The second "was" is ungrammatical in this wording.
  • Ise was assigned to 1st Division should be "to the 1st Division," like you wrote immediately after it.
    • Good catch
  • [...] off the Siberia coast should be "Siberian coast" or "off the coast of Siberia." Link to Japanese intervention in Siberia.
    • Good catch and done.
  • Provide a link to the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake. I would also provide a link to China in the following sentence, or to the Republic of China (1912–1949).
    • Done.
  • [...] help to sink should, I think, be [...] help sink. Unless, that is, if its just part of the British English that the article is written in.
    • I went with "helped sink"
  • Link to Pagoda mast. I would link to naval and shipbuilding terms in general.
    • Added. Every naval or shipbuilding term is linked one place or another; if you find any others please let me know.
  • I feel there is an unexplored gap in time from Ise's overhaul in Kure to Pearl Harbor. I would begin "Start of the Pacific War" like this: "Reinforced by the battleships Nagato and Mutsu, and a newly overhauled Ise, and the light carrier Hōshō, the 2nd Division [...]" The prose up to this point in general is very mechanical.
    • I agree with you on the mechanical wording and have mixed it up a little in an effort to improve it. Any gap results from the spotty coverage available in the sources. She's on patrol off the Chinese coast from early '39 to early '41 and then I only have organizational-type info for her until the war starts.
  • There is no mention of Ise's activities in the Battle of Midway. Did she do anything at the battle?
    • She wasn't present at the Battle of Midway.
  • Combine paragraphs two, three, and four in "Conversion to hybrid carrier".
    • I dunno; two and three cover different aspects of the conversion, while the fourth covers her return to service. I suppose two and three could be combined under the greater rubric of the conversion, but not four.
  • In the first paragraph of "Battle of Cape Engaño and afterwards," provide links to the Bonin Islands, Fourth Carrier Division, 634th Naval Air Group, the Yokosuka D4Y, the Aichi E16A, and the Hyūga.
    • All previously linked.
  • In the second paragraph, provide links to Leyte Gulf, Fast Carrier Task Force (Task Force 38), and Luzon.
    • Added links for the places; the other linked in the preceding para.
  • Ise was near missed eight times should be "nearly missed".
    • Those two are not interchangeable - a near miss did not hit - something that "nearly missed" did hit. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no links to Operation Kita in either of their instances.
    • Additional link in the main body added.
  • HMS Tantalus is not marked as such.
    • Fixed
  • Provide a link to the Fourth Carrier Division, Kure, Ondo-no-seto, in "Final Role."
    • All previously linked, except for Ondo Seto which has no link, Ondo-no-seto is a strait and I'm not sure if it has any relation to Ondo Seto.

X –Vami_IV✠ 16:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive review, although I'm puzzled why you didn't apply these to the FAC for her sister Hyuga as many of the comments apply to both articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - all image licenses check out. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I spy a couple of "armor"s (and the same "modernized" as in the Hyūga FAC)
  • Couple of dupe links.
  • I second Peacemaker's comment below on links in the lead - that makes sense for short articles, but this one is long enough that a link repeated in the service history section would be of use to readers. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh, I'd have sworn that I checked this for AmEnglish and duplicate links before I nominated it, but obviously not. I think that I've gotten all of these, but lemme know if I missed any of them, or if I need to link anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should see the silly stuff I still miss all the time. Happy to support now. Parsecboy (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

  • the pp length is in the infobox but not in the body
  • the decimal conversions of the lengths and beam jar, should be ft in
  • deep load is used in the body, but full load in the infobox
  • the crew figures in the text and infobox don't match
  • where were the pairs of main gun turrets located, I assume one forward and one aft, but the other pair?
  • the text says 20 secondary guns, but infobox says 16?
  • the first reconstruction data says 24.5 kn, but the infobox says 25 kn
  • During the reconstruction the forward pair of 14-centimetre guns in the forecastle were removed at this time
  • Given two 14 cm guns were removed, shouldn't the second infobox show 18 guns? See above comment about the number of secondary guns.
    • Good catch, but the early 1930's armament change wasn't a reconstruction. The infobox refers to the rebuild a couple of years later when a second pair of 14 cm guns was removed, giving a total of 16 guns.
  • I can't make sense of the second infobox range for deck armour. If the deck was 85 mm 55+30 initially, how did it drop to 51? And if the total increase was to 140, how do we get 152?
    • I cut this section so I can go into it in more detail in the class article.
  • Siberian coast?
  • I can't make sense of the third infobox AA gun figures as built. In the body it says 57 weapons, but the infobox indicates 104? Isn't this the final number?
    • That infobox refers to the ship's final armament in 1945.
  • link Leyte Gulf
  • I have to say, your policy of only one link in the lead doesn't make reading the full article very easy. I found myself having to scroll up to hover over the earthquake, Second Sino-Japanese War and Operation Kita to get an idea of each
  • For consistency, it should probably be British submarine HMS Tantalus

That's me done. Great job on a complex ship history. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry to take so long to respond, but I think that I've addressed all of your comments. If I missed anything that needs to be linked let me know and I'll add it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from White Shadows

This is all just aesthetics, but wouldn't it be sufficient to just call the "Design and description" section "Design"? On that same note, could "Construction and career" be split into two different sections? --White Shadows New and improved!
If anything, there's far more description than design in that section, but I always lead off with at least a sentence on the design. A separate construction section would be pretty short and the MOS doesn't recommend one-paragraph sections, so I combine them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sturm, just a reminder that this is here, with outstanding comments that need addressing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sturm, just doing a source review as that is now mandated at ACR. All the books and papers look to be reliable and of high quality. What can you tell me about Combinedfleet.com and its reliability? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the primary authors of the website are published specialists on the IJN. See [1].--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine then. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 4 August 2018 (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_battleship_Ise&oldid=1138360425"