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

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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 08:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō[edit]

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria for consideration for promotion to A-class status. The article is a co-nomination between me and Sturmvogel 66. Cla68 (talk) 08:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - from the top
    • Infobox and Lead
      • In the opening sentence of the lead, I'd maybe reverse the two bits, noting first that she was the first purpose-built aircraft carrier in the world.
      • Do we know where she was scrapped? It might be good to mention that in the lead.
        • The location is given in the last paragraph. I don't really think that the location is important enough for the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Design and Description
      • Hōshō was the second warship after the British Hermes to be designed from the beginning as a carrier and the first to be launched.[4] - there's something awkward about this wording. I'd maybe rephrase to "Hosho was the second warship after the British Hermes to be designed from the beginning as an aircraft carrier, but was completed and launched earlier than Hermes". I'm not entirely sure what to do with this particular sentence, but it's very difficult to read.
      • Could you maybe explain what the revisions that were forced by Argus and Furious observation were?
    • Service
      • When it specifies that she was attached to the Main Body at the Pearl Harbor attack, could we possibly specify which battleships they were? It mentions eight but I can only think of six (the two Ise, two Fuso and two Nagato, the Kongos were w/ the strike force or w/ Kondo near Singapore).
      • Similarly, the composition of the Main Body at Midway in terms of heavy ships would be helpful.
      • What exactly is a "special guard ship"?
        • I have no idea, but perhaps Cla68 does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. You're right, there appears to have been only six battleships in the Main Body during Pearl Harbor. I've notified Mr. Tully that the TROM might need a check on that number. The sources don't explain what a "Special Guard Ship" is. In my opinion, it means a high-sounding name was given to a large ship that has been dedicated to local, last ditch, likely suicidal, defense of the Japanese homeland, but my opinion doesn't count since I'm not a reliable source. Cla68 (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, superb work! Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all my concerns have been addressed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 21:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- performed a light copyedit but I really see no issues here, structure/prose/referencing/coverage/illustrations all appear fine -- well done! One minor thing, you should probably be consistent linking publishing locations in the bibliography -- couple are (twice in one case), most aren't, should be all or nothing (but without dups). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • no dabs, ext links work (no action required);
    • Check the mark up coding for Citation # 23 "; Watts, p. 169; Evans, p. 315; Parshall and Tully, p. 7" - seems to be an out of place punctuation mark;
    • Citation # 40: " Parshall and Tully, pp. 385-393; Tully" - should have an endash;
    • some of your citations end with full stops and some don't (e.g. Citation # 28 and 29) - should be consistent;
    • the titles in the References should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, e.g. the Evans work should be Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887–1941";
    • some of the works in the References should have endashes added to the year ranges in the titles (e.g. Howarth, Jentschura). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments. Periods in last two captions: see WP:MOSCAPTION. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "purpose-designed": "purpose-built" and similar are chiefly British. The most common American translation is "special-purpose", but in this case maybe: "... the first ship ever commissioned that was designed and built as an aircraft carrier." - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The ship, commissioned in 1922, was ...": Commissioned in 1922, the ship was. As a rule of thumb, minimize the number of pauses and parenthetical statements. (However, don't move a parenthetical phrase to the beginning if it's not short and the readers might be surprised when they get to the subject.) - Dank (push to talk)
  • "testing ... air operations techniques": It would be better to say what techniques you're talking about. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "during its career", "after her return": either gender is fine, but be consistent. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The small size of the ship and its assigned airgroups (usually around 15 aircraft), however, limited the effectiveness of its contributions to combat operations.": not sure what to do with this; probably deleting the sentence would be best, and stick "small ship" and "usually around 15 aircraft" somewhere in this paragraph or the first paragraph. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Well, the size of the ship was significant into why she was placed in reserve status after the early stages of the Sino-Japan War. I added a transitional phrase to the next sentence to show why that factoid is included where it is. Cla68 (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During World War II the only battle in which Hōshō participated was the Battle of Midway in June 1942 in which ...": not sure how to reword it, but it's generally a bad idea to have "in which" twice. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "survived the war having suffered only minor damage": survived the war with only minor damage. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The original requirement for Hōshō was for a seaplane tender based on the design of the British ...": probably "Hōshō was planned as a seaplane tender like the British ...". - Dank (push to talk)
  • "with a flying-off deck forward and the ability to carry 32 aircraft with four ...": Less precise but shorter and probably better is "with a flying-off deck forward, 32 aircraft, and four ...". - Dank (push to talk) P.S. Or "thirty-two aircraft, and four ..." per the suggestion for parallelism in WP:ORDINAL ... I never know what will fly, haha. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "afterwards": afterward in AmEng, afterwards in BritEng per Chicago 5.220. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "reports were received from an observer of the landing trials conducted on Furious and others who inspected HMS Argus, the world's first flush-decked aircraft carrier, that forced the revision ...": "that forced" is too far away from what it's modifying, "reports". - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The flight deck was modified as one continuous deck by deleting the superstructure and the funnels were moved to one side, turning the ship into an aircraft carrier rather than a seaplane tender.": probably "The superstructure was removed and the funnels were moved to one side to create an unobstructed flight deck, and the ship was reclassified as an aircraft carrier." Some don't like the passive voice, and you could say who's doing the reclassifying if you like. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "She was given a full-length flight deck and a small island.": This comes right after the above, so it's not clear whether you're talking about a new refit or just describing the same refit in different words, which probably isn't necessary. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I've combined and partially rewritten the two paragraphs to address the 3 points above. How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The funnels did not protrude from the side of the hull and the flight deck had to be narrowed to accommodate them.": I can't get an image of how this works. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Hōshō's designed speed was reduced to 25 knots": My understanding is that you don't get a reduction in speed by intending to reduce speed, it's a byproduct of something else, such as extra width or extra armor. - Dank (push to talk)
    • They just reduced the required speed to 25 knots as 30 knots was no longer thought desireable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a overall length": an - Dank (push to talk)
  • "take-off": takeoff (much more common in AmEng per Webster's NWD and Merriam-Webster Collegiate) - Dank (push to talk)
  • "conn": a little informal, at least at first occurrence - Dank (push to talk)
  • "well forward, on the starboard side and ...": parenthetical phrases need either two commas or none. None would probably be better here. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "their light weight meant that they were vulnerable": their light weight made them vulnerable - Dank (push to talk)
  • "a collapsible crane intended to load aircraft": "Intended" always raises at least the possibility that it was never actually used for the purpose. If you don't want to suggest that, then "a collapsible crane for loading aircraft" is better. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The flight deck, unlike those on Royal Navy carriers, was superimposed on the ship's hull rather than constructed as a strength deck supporting the carrier's hull structure": "The flight deck was superimposed on the ship's hull and did not support the carrier's hull structure, as on Royal Navy carriers." (Was this true for all RN carriers?). - Dank (push to talk)
    • Evans may be wrong here as the only existing RN carrier that might actually use the flight deck as a strength deck is Argus. But I'll have to check.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both Argus and Hermes, the only two real RN carriers in existence both used the flight deck as a strength deck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nine small aircraft like fighters": up to nine small aircraft, such as fighters. (Comma before a non-restrictive phrase.) - Dank (push to talk)
  • "16.5 by 14 meters (54 ft 2 in × 45 ft 10 in)": I'm not sure, but "by" in the first and "x" in the second seems unusual. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I'm not sure what's going on here as the code is identical in both cases.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "six large aircraft like torpedo bombers as well as ...": six large aircraft, such as torpedo bombers, as well as. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "(34.0 by 25.8 ft) in size": not a big deal, but it makes sense to me to reserve "in size" for the places where some readers might not be sure; here, you don't need it. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "14 cm/50 3rd Year Type guns": It might be helpful to write a new section for our article on the 20 cm/50 3rd Year Type naval gun, and link to that section. Up to you. - Dank (push to talk)
  • (down the page) "0530": needs at least a colon. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Okay I'm trying to keep it to an hour per article, so I'll stop after the intro and the first section. Give it a shot, then I can come back and support just the part I've covered. - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to go to the trouble of giving me links, I'll just pull up the diff of everything at once to check it. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting the parts I covered, but the second sentence in the intro should be broken into two sentences, and remember not to have non-parallel items in a comma-delimited list. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Hōshō&oldid=401022030"