Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Hiei

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.

---

Japanese battleship Hiei

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)(Prof)

Hiei was the second of the Kongo battlecruisers, and the first one constructed in Japan. She underwent what was likely the most varied reconstructions of any of the warships, being converted to a training ship to avoid being scrapped in 1929, before being reconfigured as a fast battleship. This is the last of the Kongo battlecruiser articles left to go through ACR. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical comments

• Dab links: Henderson Field.
• External links: combinedfleet.com returns a redirect warning.
• Alt text: none present.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Looks pretty good. Performed a light copyedit but generally prose seems fine, as do structure, coverage and referencing. A few points:

• Formatting inconsistencies... You say "6-inch (15 cm) 50-caliber medium guns in single casemates", then "The sixteen 6"/50 caliber guns". First off, why go to ' " ' for inch when you said "inch" before? Second, if "50-caliber" is hyphenated the first time, why not the next? I would say you should use "inch" everywhere, and hyphenate gun size/caliber everywhere as well. Note there are also instances under Service, particularly re. her reconstruction, where you drop the hyphenation -- pls make it consistent.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Spelling inconsistencies... I gather you're favouring US spelling throughout but I spotted "harbour" under Combat and loss -- pls fix and check elsewhere.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do "Training Ship" and "Fast Battleship" need to be in capital letters in the relevant subheadings?

they're official titles of ship type, I'd think so, but I'm open to changing them as well. thoughts? Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well they're not capitalised anywhere in the text so it should be consistent one way or the other... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed for consistency, also dealt with disambig and external link issues. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't HMS Hermes (95) be piped to simply "HMS Hermes"?

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Images: Not sure about the licensing for the infobox illustration -- who exactly is granting usage under GNU? All other pics seem okay.

I'm pretty sure it's the same licensing as the line-drawings I've used on other japanese battlesship articles, in that the author of the images granted it. I'll doublecheck though. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, I had another look myself and now that I've deciphered the author's signature I think it's cool. Happy to support now but can you respond to the query re. caps in the subheaders above? Also the Henderson Field dab (see Technical Comments) is still there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - can't find any major issues. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments/questions:
  • What did Hiei do for rescue work in response to the 1923 earthquake?

none of my sources give exact details; they simply say that she did participate in rescue-work. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• • After the 1927 refit, how were the embarked floatplanes launched and recovered? Cla68 (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. "was demilitarized and converted": I'd prefer "was converted". - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "throughout the mid-1930s": in the mid-1930s - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Kongō class battlecruisers": hyphen - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Caption: "Hiei fitting out in Yokosuka, September 1913": Hiei's fitting-out in Yokosuka, September 1913 (no period). It's clearer this way that "fitting-out" is a noun. - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "they have been called the battlecruiser version": ... versions - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "With their heavy armament and armor protection (which took up 23.3% of their approximately 30,000 ton displacement)": I can't tell from the sentence whether the armor or the armament plus the armor constituted 23.3%. - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed I believe. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "in four twin turrets (two forward, two aft)": not a big deal, but it's best to avoid parentheses if there's an easy workaround, since they're a little ponderous. "in four twin turrets, two forward and two aft". OTOH, the "(all located amidships)" in the next paragraph is perfect. - Dank (push to talk) 04:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "could fire ... at a firing rate of ...": could fire at a rate of - Dank (push to talk)

That is a stupid redundancy on my part. Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "deploying more powerful vessels before their opponents": deploying powerful vessels before their opponents (wasn't clear what the vessels were more powerful than). - Dank (push to talk)

I'm confused. What I'm trying to say is that the warships the Japanese designed were deliberately more powerful than anything else in any other navy. I've changed to "more powerful vessels than their opponents", if that works as well. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That works. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "main-guns": main guns - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "dyes were introduced for the armor-piercing shells of the four Kongo-class battleships": It would help to add something like "so that gunners could distinguish the hits from a distance". - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "5–6 rounds per minute": "5 or 6 ..." or "between 5 and 6 ..." - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "the former German colonies in the Caroline, Marshall and Mariana Islands, and Palau": the former German colonies in Palau and in the Caroline, Marshall and Mariana Islands. (In a list, put the compound element after the simple element(s).) - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "less active than during the war": less active after the war - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Second Reserve": would benefit from a quick explanation or link. - Dank (push to talk)

I've hunted through every reference material I have in my collection, Carleton's collection, and the interlibrary loan collection I have access to. Nowhere does anything specify what "first reserve" and "second reserve" are in terms of the difference between them. If I could fix this problem, I would. I'll ask cla68 if he's got anything. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "This resulted in the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922. Under the terms of the treaty,": "Under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922," - Dank (push to talk)

done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "the size of the Imperial Japanese Navy was significantly lessened": the Imperial Japanese Navy was significantly reduced - Dank (push to talk)

done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "in preparation for her demilitarization and reconstruction": would "decommissioning" work for you in place of "demilitarization", or does that not get the full meaning? - Dank (push to talk)

Decomissioning implies that the scrapyards are on the way. Hiei wasn't decommissioned from the navy, simply converted. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. I've copyedited articles on British battlecruisers that went through 3 cycles of commissioning and decommissioning. How about "in preparation for her reconstruction"? - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please link the first occurrence of "demilitarize" or "demilitarization" to demilitarization. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Okay I'm trying to limit my copyediting to around an hour per A-class review, so I'll stop here. Take a whack at these, and then I can probably support just the parts I had time to copyedit: look at: the introduction, first section, and first subsection after that. - Dank (push to talk)
• Looks good, now supporting the parts I looked at. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a well-written and comprehensive article, but needs a bit more work to reach A class:
  • Why is her original armament the only feature of her design discussed in the 'Design and construction' section? (and is this really needed if she didn't differ from her sister ships when built?)
  • Russian battleship Imperator Nikolai I was named Iki and had most recently been a coast defence and training ship at the time she was sunk and hadn't been a 'Russian pre-dreadnought' for 10 years

I've added a bit about this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • What did being in 'Second Reserve' involve?

See above in answer to Dan as well. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be best to just say she was in 'reserve' then. Using a technical term you can't provide a definition for is probably best avoided when possible (I'd guess that the different categories of reserve referred to the resources set aside to crew and reactivate the ship) Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Why was her reconstruction halted by the London Treaty if it "restricted battleship construction" - the article previously stated that she was being demilitarised so that she was no longer considered a battleship (I presume that the definition of 'battleship' was widened to avoid dodges such as this)

I'm not as familiar w/ the London Treaty as the Washington, but my guess is that you're probably correct; the definition was likely widened to stop navies like Japan's from bending the rules. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • The first paragraph of the '1942: Combat and loss' section needs to note that she was operating with the carrier force during its operations off the Netherlands East Indies in February and March 1942; the article currently implies that she was operating independently

I'm not entirely sure which passage you're referring to. Could you specify a sentence? Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"In February, she deployed alongside a force of carriers and destroyers in response to American raids on Japanese bases in the Gilbert and Marshall Islands.[5] On 1 March, following carrier operations against Darwin and Java, Hiei, Kirishima and Chikuma engaged the destroyer USS Edsall (DD-219), with Hiei firing 210 14-inch and seventy 6-inch shells. When the ships failed to score any hits, dive-bombers from three of Admiral Nagumo's carriers immobilized the destroyer, which was then sunk by gunfire from the three ships." - it should be clearly noted that she sortied again with the carriers after the raid on the Gilbert and Marshalls, which led to the actions near the NEI. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed I believe. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• • The Australian town of 'Port Darwin' only exists in some American-authored literature on World War II - the town was called by its present name of 'Darwin' at the time.

Fixed and properly linked. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • "However, shells from San Francisco disabled Hiei's steering machinery." is currently unreferenced

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Was Hiei located and photographed by Robert Ballard during his expedition to the Solomon Islands? Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe so. They located Kirishima, but from what I know of the expedition they didn't manage to locate Hiei. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • The first sentence in the lead doesn't work for me: "Hiei (比叡?) was a warship of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War I and World War II." Surely the battleship didn't just serve during the wars but in between them as well? Maybe reword?
    • She definitely did serve in between the wars, but that's where her prominence lies. I'm mostly following convention from Japanese battleship Haruna, which I've used as the template for the subsequent class articles.
      • It still seems imprecise to me and I believe it should be reworded, but if you don't want to I won't hold up the review to insist on it. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The second last sentence it the lead also seems awkward: "After inflicting heavy damage on American cruisers and destroyers, Hiei was crippled by American vessels." May something like: "After inflicting heavy damage on a number of American cruisers and destroyers, Hiei was crippled."
    • would "enemy vessels" work better? I want to make it clear who was doing the crippling. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes. It works for me in this case because the subject of the article is the ship itself, not the battle, where the term might come across as POV. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The tense in this sentence seems troublesome: "The four battlecruisers of the Kongō-class were designed to match the naval capabilities of the other major powers at the time; they have been called the battlecruiser versions of the British (formerly Turkish) battleship HMS Erin." Why not something like: "The four battlecruisers of the Kongō-class were designed to match the naval capabilities of the other major powers at the time and were called the battlecruiser versions of the British (formerly Turkish) battleship HMS Erin."
    • Except they weren't considered that equivalent until well after all four had been sunk; it's only in subsequent scholarship and analysis that they've been compared to HMS Erin. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries, it could still be reworded to be more clear IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the words 'antiaircraft' and 'antiship' be hypenated (i.e anti-ship)?
    • Webster's NWD and Merriam-Webster say "antiaircraft". I assume anti-ship should be hyphenated. - Dank (push to talk) 06:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Acknowledged. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The first sentence in the 1914-1929 section is repetative: "On 4 August 1914, Hiei was formally commissioned and attached to the Sasebo Naval District, before being attached to the Third Battleship Division of the First Fleet two weeks later." (you use attached twice in the same sentence);
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of the terms 'First World War' and 'World War I' interchangably. Please pick one and use it consistently; and
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You seem to have used an inconsistent short citation style in the inline citations: in some instances you have just used author and page (e.g Frank, pp. 167–172) and in others you have used author, date and page (e.g. Jackson (2000), p. 72 ). AFAIK both are correct although I prefer author, date and page. Regardless please choose one and use it consistantly.
    • That was a carry-over from previous articles where I had two jackson books. I've fixed this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • This actually seems to be worse now... you seem to use three different citations now: (1) Jackson with no year (2) Jackson (2000) and (3) Jackson (2007). In the references section you only list Jackson 2000 though. Maybe I'm missing something thats really obvious to everyone else but this just seems wrong to me. Meanwhile the inline citation style remains inconsist per my original comments. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah. that did mess it up further. I use the year for Jackson because there's two different Jackson books. It's the only way to differentiate between them (publishing year). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I must not be explaining this very well because it is still incorrect. I have gone ahead and added dates to all inline citations for consistency now so this mostly solves this concern. However you have two inline citations which are not supported by a reference. Specifically # 4 Jackson (2008), p. 27 and # 11 McLaughlin, pp. 44–45. Neither of these citations correspond with an entry in the references section so I cannot fix this myself. Please add them to the references section. Anotherclown (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh! I get it now! I've added the books. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yep thats it. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this is an excellent article and I will gladly support when these issues are resolved. Anotherclown (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Support
  • the Advisor script reports that there might be an error with the ISBNs for Schom and Willmott, could you please check these?;

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • some of the ISBNs have hyphens and others don't, these should probably be presented in a consistent style;

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Notes there is "Gardiner and Gray (1980), p. 234", however, in the References the only work I can find by Gardiner and Grey has a 1984 publication date;
    • Can you please check this one, it still appears to be an issue? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It's actually 1984

• • in the Notes there is "Stille (2004)" and "Stille (2008)", but in the References only "Stille 2008";
    • Damn... this was my mistake. It is meant to be 2008 but I must have muffed it when adding the dates to the citations. I have fixed this now. My apologies. Anotherclown (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Notes there is "Willmott (2002)", but the work appears to be by Willmott and Keegan, so I think the short citation should be "Willmott and Keegan (2002)", given that you have "Gardiner and Grey";

That's because I ended up using a different version of the book. I've changed the citations to reflect this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Notes there is inconsistency with the use of italics for the Parshall, Hackett et al source (e.g. Citation # 2 is in italics, but # 5 and 7 are not). These should be consistent;

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Notes most of the web citations are formatted as "Retrieved 26 February 2009", but then with Citation # 2 you have "Retrieved 2009-02-11". These should be consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed with consensus to promote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. 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.