Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Tosa/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:14, 11 May 2010 [1].

---

Japanese battleship Tosa

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC) and Cla68[reply]

Tosa was a super-dreadnought battleship that was never completed. As a general rule, ships like this don't normally have individual articles, but this one is special due to the many tests she was put through, which later influenced the well-known Yamato-class battleships of the Second World War. With the help of Cla and the members of Tullys Port, I believe this is now a well-referenced and full account of the ship; the only thing missing is where the wreck is, but I can't find any information on that. I'm wondering if a Japanese language newspaper archive would have something? Anyway, thanks for your comments and reviews; I'll address them as soon as I can. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found a ref for the sinking area, although I can't find Tosa Gulf with a Google search. Hope this helps. Buggie111 (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but I removed it for the moment. I think that the Tosa Gulf is off Shikoku (see File:Inlandsea.jpg), making it too far east—multiple refs say that the ship was sunk in the Bungo Channel. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A dab link to Washington Treaty. Ucucha 19:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment I fixed the dab link above, most images don't have alts. Buggie111 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Buggie, I'll do the alts later tonight. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments This is an excellent article, but I think that it needs a little more work to reach FA class:
  • It would be worth noting somewhere that Kaga was completed as an aircraft carrier. Was there any reason that Tosa also wasn't converted to a carrier? (presumably as she was too close to completion as a battleship to make this practical)
    • Done in a note. The Treaty only allowed two capital ships to be converted. The two chosen were Amagi and Akagi, but the former was wrecked in the 1923 Tokyo earthquake, so Kaga was used instead. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para in the 'Design and construction' is poorly structured - sentences jump from the ship to the treaty negotiations (eg, "While she was being fitted out with a projected completion date of July 1922, Japan was party to the talks at the Washington Naval Conference; work on Tosa was halted on 5 February 1922, one day before Japan signed the treaty that was formulated at the conference.")
    • What do you think now?
  • What's meant by the barbettes for the 406 mm (16 inch) guns being 'present'? - had they been fitted to the ship, or were they in the vicinity?
    • Copyedited
  • What's a 'frame'?
    • I need to create an article on this... from what I understand, I believe they are the spaces between the horizontal bulkheads—ie so Frame 1 is at the bow.
      • Created and linked, frame (nautical) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The outline order of the ship's sinking doesn't seem necessary Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it was their plan, not what actually happened, so I couldn't figure out a way to convert it to prose without it looking odd. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just converted the key points of the directive into prose, removing the unimportant details (such as who was commanding what) in the process. What do you think? Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do like that. I was trying to include all of the planned commanders before, which is probably why I was having trouble. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All comments now addressed Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Why is the article not following the 2C criteria of Smith 2007, p. 1. style? --Brad (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The norm, I believe, is that the citation format has to be consistent; I think that 2c is just giving an example of a good citation. Also, I've used this citation format in two other FAs without a problem: North Carolina-class battleship and Dutch 1913 battleship proposal. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trouble is that following the 2c criteria and its list of examples doesn't particularly point out that your style is ok. This is an observation and not a judgment. Otherwise your citations are consistent throughout the article.
  • Need some consistency with conversions. You have a mix of metric first with English second and English first with metric second. I spotted one metric without English conversion. Also things like nautical miles need the English mile as well as km.
    • I finally hunted through the article and got all of them. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Except for the ones I had to fix! --Brad (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, sorry about that... thanks for taking the time to review and fix, my friend. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if you can move the pic so it doesn't sandwich with the infobox. --Brad (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been remedied. --Brad (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that's a function of monitor size - on my broad-screen monitor it produces white space, but if I make the browser smaller to an ersatz 1024-ish size, there's no conflict by far. - The Bushranger (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where would you suggest I move it to? It sandwiches on my screen too, but with an article this short... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps not all the images are necessary then. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 17:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was looking at a different pic (the one below the infobox), I see what was meant here now. I moved the one I was referring to to the left, which solves the white-space problem on bigger monitors. I'm not sure what to do about the "sandwiching" pic though. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved them around and deleted one; what do you think now? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for my monitor, the left align of the image under the infobox is needed to avoid whitespaceitis (see article talk page), but it works fine on a 1024-sized screen. Nothing to hold it up about, just a quibble. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - mainly nitpicky:
  • I generally like to see more than one paragraph in the lead. Is there any way to split and lengthen it? Perhaps include the significance of the gunnery testing, and maybe some of the specifics of the ship's construction (i.e., keel laying, launching)
  • "frame 228 10.8 feet" reads really awkwardly, sort of like there's a missing unit symbol or something. I know what you mean, but is there any way to split the numbers up with a word or something?
  • Do we really need the arcminutes of the ship's list? That seems needlessly specific.
  • In the second para of the "Sinking" section, who is "they?" You and I know you mean the miscellaneous tugs/observation ships/etc. that accompanied the ship to be scuttled, but it would be better to specify somewhere, if possible.
  • You've got a 360-millimetre (14 in) - three problems: first, it's in BE and the rest of the article is in AE, and second, it's metric first. I believe all of the Japanese guns followed British practice of measuring the diameter in Imperial units. Lastly, it's an incorrect conversion, 14 inches is approximately 355 mm, not 360.
• Everything else looks pretty good. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've addressed all of these barring arcminutes—it may be too much detail, but it was there, so I included it :) —and the last, becuase I think that the Japanese switched to metric in 1917. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That all looks good, one one thing: per WP:SEEALSO, the link for Battleship Island needs to have an explanation of its relevance. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - my nitpicks have been addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very niceSteven1969 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments It's good for what it is, but it seems 'light' to me. I can't tell if it's a problem with notability or citable content and maybe it's because I just did the (awesome) Battle of Villers-Bocage review. I know it's a tough request, but how about a series of graphics indicating the effect of the explosions on the hull? Any engineering drawings or equivalent estimated from sources would also add immesurably to the 'weight'. Doug (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oof, that's tough. The only drawings I've seen are in Lacroix/Wells and Garzke/Dulin, and I suspect that Lengerer would have them (but I was only provided with a relevant excerpt by him). See page 759 here for a diagram of the 406-mm shell hit which so dramatically influenced the design of the Yamatos, and I could get a similar scan from G/D, but I am not an artist. I can crop and rotate images, that's about it. :-) Would you be able to draw a diagram up if I gave you a scan of G/D (so you can use both sources and not create a derivative work)? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm assuming here that a straight scan would not pass NFCC—if it would, than I'll just go that route. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very nicely written, and I'm envious of the neat referencing style. (I rarely see a 'references' section with a complementing bibliography.) AGK 13:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much! I've used some version of this style in all of my FAs; it makes the inline citations much easier to read, IMHO. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Hadn't realised I hadn't actually voted! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see an image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, all three images are PD-Japan-oldphoto, which stipulates that they be taken before the 1946 cutoff and not published or published before 1956. In either case, these images satisfy that because they were taken between 1922 and 1925. More discussion regarding images similar to this can be found at the FAC for Amagi-class battlecruiser. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: In the bibliography the Langerer entry does not seem complete (lacking publisher and location?) Otherwise, sources seem OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really 'published' in the traditional sense; from what I understand, people pay for each issue (two each year), and then he emails it to them. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what makes it a reliable source? Does it meet WP:SPS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said this before—he's also a published author and expert in the field.[2] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.