Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yamato class battleship

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.

Yamato class battleship[edit]

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been a work in redevelopment progress since November 2008. Having been completely revamped in the last week, it successfully passed its GA-Review on 11 January 2009. I believe it meets all the criteria for A-Class. Cam ^(Chat) 05:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Outstanding read. Good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just watch the double spaces - I've removed a few but don't have the time to go through the whole page. John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ This is a great article but I don't think that it provides enough information (though I'm not going to oppose the nomination as the quality is very high).
- I think that the sentences in the intro which state "Only one of the three vessels would ever see active combat—the Yamato during the Battle off Samar. The Musashi would spend the majority of her life in the naval-bases at Brunei, Truk, and Kure, before being sunk during the Battle of Leyte Gulf." are a bit confusing given that Yamato went to basically the same places as Musashi until Leyte Gulf - it might be better to say that both ships spent almost their entire service tied up at anchor here and then expand upon Yamato.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 05:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What happened to the planned 4th and 5th ships of the class? Were they ever laid down, and when and why were they canceled?

Clarified at the beginning of the "ships" section. Cam ^(Chat) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Given the secrecy with which the ships were built, what was the ONI's sources of information on them? - I presume that it would have come only from signals intelligence and aerial and submarine photos (which obviously could only provide limited details) - is this correct?

You'd have to ask Tom that. Cam ^(Chat) 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who added that info; Friedman in U.S. Battleships did not state how the ONI got their info. I'd assume that you are right, with the addition that they got their names through radio intercepts, but that is OR. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess again. "...despite the most vigorous efforts, the United States Navy was unable to discover any concrete details about Japan's construction plans until after the Imperial Fleet had put the Yamato class-the most powerful battleships of all time-into commission. Not even the reading of Japanese ciphers and codes after 1940 provided the United States Navy with much solid information on the technical characteristics of the ships that top Japanese naval planners had regarded as their most effective weapon." -- Rearming in a Vacuum: United States Navy Intelligence and the Japanese Capital Ship Threat, 1936-1945. Malcolm Muir, Jr. The Journal of Military History 54 (October 1990):473-85. American Military Institute. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well....I wish that it would have said where they got the info though... :( —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some technical details and other information of value came from paperwork off captured Imperial forces. I'm still rereading my source but I intend to add this and other information to the article shortly. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The use of 'the' before the ships' names is inconsistent - sometimes it appears and other times it doesn't - is there a preferred convention for IJN ship names?

fixed to fit one standard throughout. Cam ^(Chat) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The potted histories of the ships could be expanded - it seems inconsistent that light damage Yamato suffered at Kure in 1945 is mentioned but not the damage both ships suffered from submarine attacks during their careers

Expanded. Cam ^(Chat) 07:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The 'Aspects of the Yamato Class' doesn't mention Shinano's armament and armour. As these were quite different to her two 'sisters' they should be covered here

I can expand on Shinano's armament, and I can attempt to find what limited information exists concerning the Shinano's armour (I do, however, know for a fact that it was quite weak and poorly constructed when she sank). Cam ^(Chat) 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The 'media' section needs citations, and could be expanded with material on how the ships are still viewed as a symbol of Japanese industrial power and inventiveness by modern Japanese society. I was in Japan in October and visited the large and obviously well funded Yamato Museum in Kure (which is directly across the road from the JMSDF museum) and will see if any of my photos are worth adding. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As another comment it might be worthwhile covering the debate over whether the ships were a waste of resources - this is often raised in relation to these ships (eg, it's often noted that the resources which went into these ships, which hardly saw any combat, could have instead produced dozens of the anti-submarine escorts which Japan desperately needed - I think that there's a good discussion of this in the book 'Kaigun') if that helps. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting possibility. The difficulty for me would be that I have almost no access to resources concerning that debate. It would definitely be interesting to look into though—Yamamoto himself said that over 1,000 aircraft or 3 carriers could have been constructed with the same amount of resources and financial cost. I'll look into it. Cam ^(Chat) 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found this site that discusses which BB in history was the best. While that subject is of no use here, the comments on the Yamato-class' armor IS. :) I don't think that this would qualify as an RS, but if anyone has some of his sources (listed here, at the bottom)....maybe we can add that? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. As it turns out, the combinedfleet pages were identified as a reliable source in one of Cla68's previous FACs. Cam ^(Chat) 16:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O really? Well that's cool :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that same site has been linked from the Iowa class article in the external links section for some years now. It was, and continues to serve as, a deterrent to edit wars and POV pushing by allowing visitors to look at comparison of seven major battleship classes and see how they would hypothetically compare to each other. Its worked well for me, but I must confess that I have never really thought about using the site as sources since I considered the site to be a kind of forum/blog. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, evidently it is... :) Now, I don't think that we can talk about the hypothetical comparisons (that would be OR, even if it was off-site), but we can reference the comments about, say, the armor, right? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I used it for, to reference an explanation of the structural weaknesses in Yamato's armour belt. Cam ^(Chat) 21:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, moot point. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support all my major concerns have been addressed. The 'Media' section probably needs to be substantially reworked before a FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 17 January 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.