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 01:36, 14 April 2010 [1].

Japanese battleship Yamato[edit]

Japanese battleship Yamato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat) 22:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan][reply]
Toolbox

The lead ship and namesake of the Yamato class, the largest battleships in the history of maritime warfare. This article has been in the works since January 2009. Passed its GAN in January 2009, passed its MilHist ACR February 2009, and has just undergone a substantial copyedit courtesy of EyeSerene and The ed17. I have the entire subsequent week off from school, so I should be able to deal with any concerns promptly. Respectfully nominate for FA Status. Cam (Chat) 22:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the dab link. I'll look at the image texts and see what I can do. Cam (Chat) 02:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. I should note that we have quite a bit of that stuff on the main Yamato class battleship page, and it can easily be moved over to this page as well if need be. The difficulty with the stuff on the wreck is that I don't possess any reliable sources dealing with the wreck itself and its discovery. There was something at one point, but the sources weren't considered particularly reliable. If I can find anything that meets RS with regards to the wreck discovery, I'll definitely add it in. Cam (Chat) 02:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cam that looks really good already. Bit pressed for time today, but I'll give you a few more comments in a day or two. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly Support. The article looks great Cam (and everyone else who's worked on it), although I do have a few niggles:

I'm not sure what's going on there. I may have to manually convert a few of them. It actually only occurs once, and I've manually converted it instead. Cam (Chat) 22:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I assumed the ammunition example was a template as well (but didn't check and thinking about it there is only one measurement, so blatently not a conversion!) I've adjusted it to metric though. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly because the Japanese used metric units when designating their guns. The big ones, for example, are known officially as the 40cm/45 calibre (even though they were actually 46cm!). It's a wee bit on the confusing side, but it's how they roll. Cam (Chat) 20:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thought that would be the case. No problem then. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something. Cam (Chat) 04:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I though about just adding it myself but thought I'd let you decide where to put it! Changed my vote (and well done, it's a great little article). Ranger Steve (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume the destroyers that then limped back to Japan. I'll add that. Cam (Chat) 22:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of number of ships in the combined orders of battle, it was the largest naval battle in history. I can find a cite for it (likely in Steinberg or Swanson) if you want. I am willing to change it but I'll see if I can find a citation for it first. Cam (Chat) 20:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added clarifier. Cam (Chat) 22:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looking good! Ranger Steve (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Brief comments

Conversions are done. Cam (Chat) 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the ones I found. Cam (Chat) 19:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Coordinates. Cam (Chat) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Converted everything to British spelling. Cam (Chat) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was my fault. Sorry Cam; I don't know how to write Brit English! :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just add a lot of "u" and "re" to your words. In fact, you could say that the armoured cruisers of the British were of a very poor calibre compared to those of the Japanese. Cam (Chat) 18:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More later--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned-up extraneous refs, added   as needed for gun sizes. Deleted unnecessary conversions; my rule of thumb is once in the infobox and once in the main body otherwise it gets too distracting. Maybe we need for formalize rules for conversions in the the MILMOS to prevent people from wasting time on this sort of stuff--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)?[reply]

I've added some stuff about the wreck. Thanks for the links. Cam (Chat) 06:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of my issues noted below have been resolved. --Brad (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Oppose Comment Since there is such a heavy reliance on combinedfleet.com what makes this source reliable? --Brad (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#CombinedFleet.com; it's also written by published authors, I believe. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; a few things in response to that. Firstly, relying on secondary sources has never been an issue with regards to WP articles. Relying overly on primary documents, according to WP:OR, should be avoided where possible. Secondly, I would add that many of the instances with regards to combinedfleet are double citations. If you wish, I can remove the combinedfleet one and simply keep the other one. Thirdly, it's all a case of what's accessible. I'll do my absolute best to get my hands on The Battleship Yamato, but if combinedfleet - which is incredibly detailed and exhaustive - is the best that I can do, then it's the best that I can do. It's been relied on extensively for many other articles that have gone through the FAC process and become featured articles. I'm a bit confused as to how relying on one exhaustive source instead of another constitutes a huge issue. That said, I'll do my best to fix what I can. Cam (Chat) 04:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I've cut down on its usage as much as I am able to (ie where other sources were capable of fulfilling the same role). Cam (Chat) 04:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other difficulty, as Ed and I are discovering pouring over our sources, is that very few sources deal with the Yamato in any great deal. I have seven books that mention the leviathan of a warship, but very few of them do so for more than a sentence here and there or a paragraph. The only fully comprehensive source I have access to, unfortunately, is combinedfleet. To be honest, it's one of the few exhaustive sources actually available on the nit-pickings of ship movement of the IJN. Cam (Chat) 05:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "hardly referenced in comparison" - Garzke and Dulin, p. 54 are referenced 18 times alone...add in pp. 56 and 57, and it rises to 31.
AFAIK, unless the tabular records themselves have been published, the kind of information they give aren't directly in print. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brad, CombinedFleet is the only source in English that I know of that has published a TROM for Yamato with that level of detail. I have most of the books printed in English that present the history of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and I just checked them all to try to replace some of the CombinedFleet citations. I was able to replace around four of them, but the rest of the CombinedFleet citations appear to have information that is contained in no other source in English, especially exact dates and the names of Yamato's skippers. What do you expect this article's editors to do, learn Japanese, then travel to Japan and visit the war history library of the Defense Ministry to personally scrub the Senshi Sōshō for the same information? Cla68 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cla68, Brad brought up a perfectly reasonable point. In my experience, adopting even a mildly combative tone, such as that seen in your last sentence, doesn't do anyone any good. It may be that the replies Brad has received, from you and other editors, as well as the recent changes, will satisfy him; would you take it amiss if I suggested you strike or recast your last sentence and await his return? All the best, Steve T • C 13:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck it, but I don't agree that his objection is reasonable. The editors pointed out that the site has been accepted as a reliable source and it is the only source for the information in question. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think it's a reasonable point to raise that an article uses a lot of one source, while seeming to ignore others, even if one accepts the subsequent explanation as to why (i.e. the others don't carry the necessary information). Still, thanks for the strike; your previous comments stood convincingly enough without that sentence. All the best, Steve T • C 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me make it clear that I know that being an FAC reviewer is an onerous and thankless task, and I appreciate that Brad is willing to be one. If I could, however, say something to all FAC reviewers in general, please be careful not to pull out a hammer to pound the protruding nail, as in the Japanese proverb, "The protruding nail must be hammered down." In this case, the high number of CombinedFleet (CF) citations stuck out very visibly and so earned itself extra attention, and unnecessarily in my opinion. If this article's editors had combined all their citations in a single footnote at the end of each paragraph, like I usually do, then the number of CF citations wouldn't have been as visible and probably wouldn't have been noted. Cla68 (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the sourcing can be summed up quite elegantly in the last paragraph of the class article:
"On the eve of the Allies' occupation of Japan, special service officers of the Imperial Japanese Navy destroyed virtually all records, drawings, and photographs of or relating to the Yamato-class battleships, leaving only fragmentary records of the design characteristics and other technical matters. The destruction of these documents was so efficient that until 1948 the only known images of the Yamato and Musashi were those taken by United States Navy aircraft involved in the attacks on the two battleships. Although some additional photographs and information from documents that were not destroyed have come to light over the years, the loss of the majority of written records for the class has made extensive research into the Yamato-class somewhat difficult. Because of the lack of written records, information on the class largely came from interviews of Japanese officers following Japan's surrender."
Since the documents for the ships - all of them - are largely missing other sources must be adopted to fill in the gaps so that these articles can comply with WP:RS standards. As for this article, I agree with Cla68 that we have no need for heavy artillery to settle this dispute. It appears that combined fleet is a reliable source, and that the information in the article is well cited to a vareity of reliable sources. From where I sit, opposition on 1-C grounds is unwarrented in this article, although I intend to take a closer look at all aspects of the article before I cast a !vote on the matter of this article's FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my viewing of it, there aren't any inconsistencies with regards to dates and pages format that are out of line. All of the refs are now in order numerically. Cam (Chat) 04:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are nowhere near complete. The author Thompson is not referenced but is in the biblio. Skulski references have (1988) while in the biblio, (2004) is given. References are missing publication dates, have outdated or missing retrieved on dates. Again, look at Smith 2007, p. 1. layout. Your refs should be inline in that manner. Notice commas and periods and where to use them. --Brad (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I've removed the unreferenced book. I've added the earlier publication date for Skulski (my guess is it was a later republication), while all retrieval dates are now on the web references. As to the consistency of the print references, I'm slightly confused as to what your objection is. I've used the format of - to continue your example - Smith (2007), p. 1. in each one of my four previous FA articles. So long as they're formatted consistently, it shouldn't be an issue. As to the lack of periods at the end of some of them, I have begun to clean that up and will finish doing so tonight. Cam (Chat) 23:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

It didn't come across as snotty at all. I looked at it again, and I'm struggling to figure out what I could have possibly been on when I wrote that sentence. Must have been powerful stuff :P Cam (Chat) 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to tonnes, though it could also possibly be metric tons if that works better. Cam (Chat) 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is British English (not sure why btw), tonnes. "Metric tons" is for American English (since only Americans need to be reminded about "metric"). - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I'll fix that. Part of my problem is that Canadian English is sort of a variant of the two, so I usually end up having about half british/half American english. I'll fix this. Cam (Chat) 23:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, let's have more Canadian English articles, they're easier for me since Chicago has always been influential with Canadian journalists. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure what to do with that. From my perspective, it mostly just looked like a horribly convoluted number-system which was really irritating to read in a flow-like manner. Thanks for changing it though, because one-hundred sixty-two really didn't look that much better. Cam (Chat)
Okay, and was "increased" (instead of decreased) right? I guessed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that seems to work much better, and yes, the number was increased almost sevenfold (not that it made a whole lot of difference, given the low quality of the guns!) Cam (Chat) 04:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. That works excellently. Cam (Chat) 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. When I get to the end, I'm going to go back (unless someone says something) and remove all the conversions on the gun barrel widths, since those are commonly used as the names of guns, and since we're having trouble with the readability of sentences like this one: " When refitted in 1944 and 1945 in preparation for naval engagements in the South Pacific, the secondary battery configuration was changed to six 155 mm (6.1 in) guns and twenty-four 127 mm (5.0 in) guns, and the number of 25 mm (0.98 in) anti-aircraft guns was increased to 162." - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Changed my mind on this. People ought to be able to see U.S.-friendly units in the U.S. and SI units in most other parts of the world, and that ought to be handled automatically by the MediaWiki software by surpressing any output of the conversion template that the user has said they're not interested in or isn't likely to be interested in. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm not spending my evening compensating for missing software, either. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. They were unarmoured, and thus their crews died easily. Dead gunners really aren't that useful. Cam (Chat) 20:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Cam (Chat) 20:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Four adjectives is a little on the heavy side. In fact, it's a ridiculous and absurd, albeit highly loquacious and resourceful, method of writing :) Cam (Chat) 20:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I imagine some of them could be stubbed a little bit. Takayanagi in particular could possibly be a 2-3 line stub, but I somehow don't really think that's an option for any of the other ones. I'll delink them. Cam (Chat) 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still not done. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now they are. Cam (Chat) 20:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a thought. That seems like a bit of a stretch, given that the connection would be difficult to establish on anything more than speculation. For now, I'm leaving it out. Cam (Chat) 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel these trivia (simply "X appeared in Y"s), aside from usually being impossible to get a reliable source, are not encyclopaedic. The project should not become indiscriminate in its information; context is key. Jappalang (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MILPOP there are some occasions where such an appearance is encyclopaedic, but you are correct that I do not feel as though the current appearance that is mentioned complies with this section of the WP:MILMOS which is a part of the WP:MOS. -MBK004 04:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - the Yamato Museum in Kure has an entire gallery dedicated to various representations of the ship in popular culture and its shop has a range of artifacts from these appearances for sale (though I settled on a Yamato snow dome). From memory, Space Battleship Yamato received by far the most attention in the museum. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not simply that mentioning the existence of the referenced item is not encylopaedic; it is the manner of presenting such items (and more importantly their context) that becomes an issue. Compare this (with context) and this (the original form). Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it. It was the wrong number, as it turns out. Cam (Chat) 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of this version, I find this a comprehensive, well-written, illustrated article about one of the iconic battleships of WWII (at least to me). It does seem to go into too much detail at times, but I think that can be easily trimmed if someone deems it detrimental to the general reader, so it would not affect my support. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it to the Glossary of nautical terms for now, then possibly stub it off later. Cam (Chat) 04:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 14 April 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.
More