Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Yashima

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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Japanese battleship Yashima[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Toolbox

Built to counter a pair of Chinese ironclads, Yashima was one of the first battleships in Japanese service and had to be ordered from Britain. She participated in the initial battles of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, but struck a mine and sank a few months later, after trying to go to the assistance of another battleship that also sank. The Japanese were able to keep the news of her loss from leaking to the Russians who had no idea that the odds against them had dramatically decreased. I've recently reworked the article to comply with the FAC criteria in anticipation of a FAC nomination. As usual I'd like reviewers to look for any remnants of AmEnglish, as well as any unfelicitous prose and unexplained or unlinked jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Japanese_battleship_Yashima.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed it out for a better image. Judging by the colorizer's previous work, this image is probably from the Kure Maritime Museum and unpublished, to the best of my knowledge, in the US.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would it have been published in its country of origin? Need a bit more information to determine US status with regards to URAA. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can't be certain, but if it was published, it was probably around 1905 when the Russo-Japanese war made books like [War vessels of Japan] popular--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • With the information we have available, is it possible to add a tag describing the image's US status? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • That works if it was published around 1905 - how likely is that? Have you seen any more information on provenance than is currently provided in the image description? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • There's a pretty similar picture on the Navy's website at [1] that's attributed to War vessels of Japan which is the oldest Japanese book that I know of with photos of their ships. So likely, I think. Alternatively, the post-war photographic publications began around 1960 and ran through about 1974, so I'd think that we're good with either PD-1923 or PD-1996.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • suggest turning lk=on to create a link for kW
  • the speed doesn't match between the body and infobox
  • suggest mentioning in the body that the smaller guns were all in single mounts
  • when Fuji was hit by a twelve-inch shell, were there any casualties?

That's all I have. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No casualties were noted, probably because the Russian shells generally detonated on contact. So if everybody's inside... Thanks for reviewing this. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

In the body

  • Link Russo-Japanese War.
  • Link Battle of Port Arthur.
  • Link Port Arthur.
  • Not in the body part. Or isn't that necessary? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Old style calender's dates in the following sentences?
  • participated in the Battle of Port Arthur on 9 February 1904 when Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō Old V. New style because this was under Russian territorial control?
  • On 10 March, Yashima and her sister Fuji, blindly bombarded the harbour of Port Arthur Same as above.
  • participated in the action of 13 April when Tōgō successfully lured out a portion of the Pacific Squadron, including Makarov's flagship, the battleship Petropavlovsk
  • When they tried again on 22 March, they were attacked by Russian coast-defence guns Same as above.
  • On 14 May, Nashiba put to sea with the battleships Hatsuse (flagship), Shikishima, and Yashima, the protected cruiser Kasagi, and the dispatch boat Tatsuta to relieve the Japanese blockading force off Port Arthur
  • I'm not using Old Style dates at all in this article because they're not used by my sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Russians would be badly disorganized I guess this article should follow the Oxford English. Right?
  • This book [2] (p. 9) claims that Japan started to use metric units in 1893.
    • Perhaps so, but their navy didn't, not until around 1917 or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Or so you said. So you don't know when they started to use metric units as their only legal system? I just read in this book [3] that Japan in 1909 also English units legal made. And in 1921 Japan passed a bill which metric units the sole measurement became. However were English units legal in Japan's army at that time when Yashima operated? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: The navy renamed most of their guns to use metric units around 1917 and much the same with measurements for their ships. Not sure if the Army did much the same thing or not. Dunno anything about civil Japan's use of metric.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, me neither. Speaking of metric units in the navy. Why does this sentence south west side of the Liaodong Peninsula, at a range of 9.5 kilometres (5.9 mi) has metric units as primary units if the navy didn't uses metric units as its sole measurement? PS I have some new comments below. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • from Pigeon Bay, on the southwest side of the Liaodong Peninsula American southwest.
  • the new Russian commander, Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov American Vice Admiral.
  • roughly at coordinates 38°34′N 121°40′E. American coordinates.
  • were slightly faster and had a better type of armor American armor.
  • In the infobox "18.25 knots (33.80 km/h; 21.00 mph)" an unnecessary nought in the km/h and even a double unnecessary noughts in the mph.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking everything; see if my changes suit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've gotten everything now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Not really we're still stuck with that American armor in the article. Also can you unlink tonnes in the infobox? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • <growls>There's always one thing that I miss. I think that PM is right; we need to link both long tons and tonnes as Americans don't use either measurement, no matter how common the latter is for the rest of the world.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: You know it's hard to follow MoS here. By MOS:OVERLINK you shouldn't link common units. But then this rule WP:DATELINK says that "Units that are relatively common generally don't need to be linked. Other units may be obscure in some countries, but well known in others (such as metric system units, which are not well known in the United States) and so linking them may be useful, unless a conversion is present, as in 20 °C (68 °F) or 68 °F (20 °C)—practically all readers will understand at least one of the measures." With other words this rule broke MOS:OVERLINK and says that it may be useful to link metric units. However if metric units should be linked then English units should be linked too. Right? Unless a conversion is present which is almost always there so personally don't understand why this rule exist. All units should have a conversion wich means it's almost impossible to link them. I mean the US doesn't use for an example metres (only in science). So should metres be linked too? In the US it's not used in dally life not like the rest of the world which does. Aahhhh just got my first headache here. This is so vague in my opinion. So when should you link a common unit? Well as far as I can tell almost never. But whatever I think this fair enough. Could you also please reply to the "Link Russo-Japanese War" part? Thanks. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I tend to be pretty generous with links, while limiting them in the lede and main body so there's no ocean of blue. I did respond to your request for links earlier; they're in the lede and won't be linked again in the main body except for very long articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Sources used are high quality and reliable
  • Citations and notes are formatted uniformly
  • No spot checks done, but given Sturmvogel's track record this is not a concern. Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, looks pretty good to me. I have just a few minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • inconsistent "completed on 17 August 1897" (in the body) v "Completed: 9 September 1897" (in the infobox)
  • and their deck were --> "and their deck was"? or "decks were"?
  • assigned to four auxiliary gunboats that were assigned to: perhaps try to avoid using "assigned" twice in the same sentence
  • "LOSS OF YASHIMA ADMITTED": should probably be title case per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • is there an isbn or oclc for the Lengerer works?
    • No. Everything else has been addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2019 (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_Yashima&oldid=906218584"