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

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 10:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've cleaned it up and expanded the lead and I believe that it meets the requirements. This will be going to FAC afterwards so please point out any problems with prose, etc. Help with the lead would also be appreciated and I'm not sure that the list of captains is worth retaining; your thoughts on the issue would be appreciated. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No problems reported with external links. One dab link needs to be located and if at all possible removed. None of your images have alt text, which is not required due to a change in the guidelines, however I would feel better about having them in the article.
    • I took a crack at the lead, let me know what you think.
    • More to follow...TomStar81 (Talk) 21:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we merge the design and general characteristics sections? The latter seems to me to be too short to be its own section.
    • In the armament section you have the line "The Americans did much the same with the provision of four twin 8-inch (203 mm) gun turrets on their Lexington-class carriers.", while I understand why it was include I
Yes think it would do better as a footnote or else be removed altogether; it seems to me that its inclusion in the text is distracting the flow of information for Kaga specifically.
      • Yeah, a foot note would be better.
    • Can we expand on the armor section at all? Its very very short and in its current form would problem do better either as a footnote somewhere or linked to the class article since details of this type are usually addressed on the class articles.
      • Maybe it can be expanded. However, from what I remember, she had a very simple armor system that had been radically reduced from her BB design, so it has to be covered here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge the Early History and Reconstruction sections, the former can not survive as its own section with only a line or two and the latter is in a position to absorb that information to explain the rebuild. Lemme see what I can do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history before WWII section is IMO too short to stand alone as a section, I would recommend extending it some or merging it with another section.
      • That's a problem because there's very little substantial information on her activities before WWII available with which to expand it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend making the Battle of Midway header a secondary header to the World War II header so as to make the two sections flow better, after all the Battle of Midway was a part of the Second World War.
      • Agreed
    • Why do we need parenthesis around the plane names (ie "Vals", "Zeros", etc)? Wouldn't it make more since to drop the parenthesis and simply state the names as they are? If I recall correctly this has been the approach in other battle articles, and its seems to work just find so far. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somebody else did the quotation marks, presumably because they're codenames, and I didn't feel like fighting them, but I'd just as soon get rid of them as they're a distraction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support After taking another read through I think that a general copyedit would do the article good, as there are some parts that read awkwardly and could do with a third party to straiten out. Otherwise, it looks good to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • in the lead, this sentence possibly needs to be clarified: "The following month her aircraft bombed Darwin, Australia and she was forced to return to Japan for repairs after hitting a rock so she did not participate in the Indian Ocean raid." Did Kaga hit the rock while participating in the bombing of Darwin? If so I'd suggest re-wording "and" (and she was forced) to "after which..."
      • Fixed
    • the first paragraph in the Design and description section doesn't have a citation;
      • Done
    • in the Flight deck arrangements section, consider rewording this: "The utility of her middle flight deck had to be questionable..." ("had to be questionable", or "was questionable")?
      • Done
    • In regards to the above clause, I feel as it seems like analysis it should have a citation directly following the statement, even if it is just a duplication of the citation at the end of the paragraph;
      • Done
    • you have a mixture of terms regarding Second World War/World War Two. In the Flight deck arrangements section you use "Second World War", but later use the term "World War Two";
      • Fixed
    • could a note be placed next to "second class reserve status" in the Early service section explaining what it means. From what I've read of the IJA there were "first reserves" and "second reserves" which relate to training obligation, I think?
      • Deleted because I'm not sure what the differences actually were.
    • in the Service in World War Two section, I think in the first sentence "she" should be replaced with "Kaga" to be specific about the subject of the paragraph;
      • Agreed
    • dashes should be consistent with WP:DASH (page ranges in Footnotes for instance, and hyphens in Commanding officers;
      • The sentence before the WP:DASH section says: "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; the rules and examples presented above illustrate the broad principles that inform current usage." One of those subtleties is that hyphens are often fine in place of dashes in smaller fonts, particularly in tabular data. I've seen many articles get through FAC and ACR with no one complaining about the hyphens in the footnotes. This isn't a big deal, but to make it easier for the writers and reviewers, it might not be a bad idea to add something to WP:MOSSHIP about this. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the MOS specifies that n dashes are to be used for page ranges and dates. Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • the References section should be sorted in alphabetical order by author's surname;
      • Done
    • in the Footnotes sometimes you have Author, Title, page # (e.g. Campbell), but then Author and page. Is there a reason for this?
      • Somebody else's citation; now cleaned up.
    • for numbers greater than nine, sometimes you use numerals (e.g. 27 Kates) but then at other times you use words (e.g. "fourteen Devastators"). In the Service in World War Two section, when discussing the Pearl Harbor attack you sometimes use numerals for values less than nine, e.g. "9 Mitsubishi A6M...". The MOS generally prefers words for those values less than 9 and numerals for 10 and above;
      • Done
    • the final sentence of the Battle of Midway section probably needs more information. In the lead you state that debris was found, but the main wreckage has not been located, however, this is not mentioned later on in the Battle of Midway section;
      • Mildly expanded.
    • in the Commanding officers section there are a couple of * but it doesn't seem to state what these mean (e.g. next to December, Rear Admiral and RADM);
    • is there are source for the claim in Note 1? — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • sourced.
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the general consensus forming at Wikipedia_talk:SHIPS#Commanding_Officers is that listing the commanding officers is not acceptable. I cannot support an article with a list of COs in it. A stand-alone list is preferable in my view if the desire is to maintain the information. -MBK004 21:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I mentioned it. Nuked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahh, I didn't see that at the beginning. I've done a bit of copyediting, but am not ready to support just yet. -MBK004 02:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Objections resolved. Cla68 (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Mild oppose. The Allied code names for Japanese aircraft, such as "Val" and "Kate" should be avoided. The Japanese didn't use those terms, so they are POV. The formal aircraft designations should be used. Also, there are a couple of other sources that should be used for this article. I'll get to those shortly. Cla68 (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...I don't comprehend how they're POV - they're (a) historical fact, and (b) are the terms the majority of Wikipedians will know these aircraft as. They're no more POV than the NATO reporting names assigned to Soviet aircraft. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed14:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68, do you have sources that label "Kate" a derogatory or biased term, and do these sources have weight and currency? If not, then it would be better to go with the English-language sources we've got; I'm not the expert, but the online sources I'm looking at all use "Kate". Even if the term is considered inappropriate for some reason by some sources, it might be better to use the widely-used term and mention the controversy, rather than hiding the widely-used term. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since about 1990, many, if not most of the Pacific War histories I've read, including most that I used when building the Guadalcanal campaign articles, stopped using those names for Japanese aircraft. Lundstrom's books, in particular, never use those names, instead calling them Aichi kanbaku, Nakajima kanko, Mitsubishi Rikko, or whatever. One problem with using "Kate", "Val", "Betty" and so on is that many, if not most, of those names didn't start being used by the Allies until late 1942 or 1943. So, at the time that Kaga was sunk in the Battle of Midway, the Allies didn't refer to the Kaga's aircraft as "Vals" and "Kates." In fact, from what I've seen in official reports of the Battle of Midway and Coral Sea, the American officers simply referred to the Japanese aircraft as "Type 97", "Type 99", "Aichi dive bombers" "Nakajima torpedo bombers" or simply "enemy dive bombers" and "enemy torpedo bombers" all of which are actually proper terms for these aircraft. See here, here, here, here, and here. "Zero" is ok to use for the A6M because the Japanese called that aircraft by almost the same name, "Type Zero." Cla68 (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I completely misunderstood your point. Nice research. - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as sources go, there are several more listed here that could have been used for this article. One in particular I wanted to point out is this one:
  • Peattie, Mark R. (1999). Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power 1909-1941. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-664-X.
This book is the book in English on the IJN's aviation arm. I would hope that any article on an IJN aircraft carrier would reference this book. Now, I know that it may be unrealistic to expect all these sources to be used to get an article to A Class level. I would expect, however, that this book at least be used before the article is nominated for Featured consideration. If all the other concerns on this page, including mine about the use of "Val" and "Kate" are addressed, I'll withdraw my sourcing concern until after this article is promoted to A Class. Cla68 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the US Navy link to the Midway OB lists the aircraft by both Japanese designation and US codename I believe that your issue with the names is inappropriate. The first several examples in the article use both and then use the codename. What makes you think that general readers only read the recent scholarship? I'd bet that Walter Lord's book on Midway is read more often than is Shattered Sword which is a far superior account of the battle. I don't bargain in exchange for a support, or even a withdrawal of an oppose. Persuade me that you are correct and I'll change the article for the better, but if not, then not. So far so I'm not persuaded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about getting the Peattie book on ILL, but decided not to bother since the focus is on the ship, not her air group. Perhaps that was a mistake, but I'm not sure how useful it would be in terms of the ship's history. My copy of Jentshura is in storage, but IIRC it doesn't have much more than Conway's and I'm not fond of using Osprey books unless there's no other choice. I've read Kaigun and Dull's book, but found nothing of use therein.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sunburst goes into great detail on the design, purpose, and peacetime operations of the IJN's carriers, not just the airgroups. If I can find the time, I'll add some information to the artice from Sunburst and I think you'll see what I mean. If you noticed, Sunburst was a major source used by Parshall and Tully in Shattered Sword. My view on using the Allied code names stand. Notice that in the Battle of the Coral Sea article it never, except perhaps in the footnotes, uses the Allied code names for the Japanese aircraft. That article has received between 20,000 and 50,000 hits per month and in the year since it made FA no one has complained about the non-use of the Allied code names for the Japanese aircraft. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just ordered Sunburst from ILL, hopefully it will get here in a week or two. I think that the codenames and the formal designations are equally good, you have a bias towards one; I could care less, but I'm not going to spend the time to change perfectly valid terminology for what are essentially stylistic reasons. Feel free to do so yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just got Sunburst and it was a bit of a disappointment. Not much mention of Kaga or her air group other than a brief reference to the first aerial victory claim over Shanghai in '32; I'd been hoping for a bit details more on her involvement in China.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's occasionally suggested by copyeditors that one word is tighter and better than two; it would be nice if it were always that easy, but it's not, and besides, a copyeditor doesn't do the writer or the reader any service by substituting their "voice" for the writer's. But take this, for example: "... but her initial configuration was not satisfactory. To address the issues with her initial rebuild, especially in regard to her three flight decks, slow speed and exhaust arrangements, she was comprehensively rebuilt during the mid-1930s. This second rebuild concluded in 1935 and adequately addressed the problems from the initial conversion." I think that can be shortened (also adding some useful detail from the article text) to: "She was rebuilt again from 1933 to 1935, increasing her top speed, improving her exhaust systems, and adapting her flight decks to more modern, heavier aircraft." We all spend a lot of time reading older sources, and even 20 years ago in the US, it was much more common to see a slow-paced prose style, but everything has changed, driven by shrinking space devoted to text, faster-paced dialogue on television, and the increasing ability and desire to read quickly. It's unfashionable to add clauses that are more or less implied by the text you've already got. I'll do more tightening in the morning, and as always, you're welcome to revert anything I do. - Dank (push to talk) 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm torn here; I think I'm going to rewrite "During her career, Kaga's aircraft supported ...". I personally think it's fine, actually, I read "during her career" as a shorter and better way to say "now I'm going to summarize her career" ... but I think in general it's safer at FAC to rewrite phrases so that it's harder for people to delete them as "redundant". - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some work is needed to restore the tarnished reputation of copyeditors because it's generally done wrong around here ... and I think that's all I'll say about that at the moment. Copyediting doesn't work unless the copyeditor has no ego invested and no stake in the outcome, only a desire (for whatever reason) to show that they're a competent copyeditor. Generally, that means the copyeditor should just make the changes they want to make, without drawing attention to themselves or faulting the writer, and keep doing it for the writers who like the end product and stop for the writers who don't. But copyediting also requires periodic transparency to solicit feedback, and Sturmvogel has agreed to let me do that with this article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Great Kate Debate, I don't have much to offer other than the general principle, and policy discussions at WT:AT have more or less reflected professional standards. When a name for somebody or something is consistently used in sources of that time, you'll never get people who grew up during that time or who read those sources to believe that the name isn't appropriate; on the other hand, communities of scholars tend to get very fixed ideas about what is and isn't appropriate, and people outside those communities rarely succeed in getting them to change their minds. The only way to answer questions like these is to go with the terms that are used and likely to be used by whatever your readership is reading. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I delinked Australia per WP:LINK. If readers want to find out about Australia, they can get there by clicking on bombed Darwin, Australia. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jardiel Poncela said, "When something can be read without effort, great effort has gone into its writing", and that's what drives many copyediting decisions. So for example, I changed: "... and she was forced to return to Japan for repairs after hitting a rock so she did not participate in the Indian Ocean raid." to: "She missed the Indian Ocean raid in April after hitting a rock and returning to Japan for repairs." (I'm not faulting your decision, there were trade-offs here.) It helps the reader if they know sooner rather than later what the point of the sentence is; hitting a rock isn't very interesting, but missing a major naval engagement is. Also, when you've got a chronology going and you put two items in the same sentence without mentioning the date of the second, the reader will make a vague assumption that the second was at roughly the same time, and this one wasn't, so I added the month. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and note I used "returning to Japan" rather than "being forced to return to Japan ..."; there are several reasons, but the main one is that we can make reasonable assumptions about the reader's ability to make sense of the narrative. I make a fair number of changes like this one, removing assumptions about what people "had to do" and "wanted to do" because it reflects my understanding of trends in professional publishing, and so far, I've never gotten reverted. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "debris identified as belonging to Kaga" -> "debris from Kaga": if what's interesting is the process (for instance, if there's some doubt about whether the identification is accurate), then "debris identified as belonging to Kaga" works fine, if you follow it immediately with what the sources say casting doubt on the identification, for instance. If you believe the source you're using, that the debris really was from Kaga, and the identification process isn't a story in itself, then "debris from Kaga" is better. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • however, therefore: you're using these and other words to alert the reader that you're transitioning to a new topic, and in general I approve, but I want to mention that there's a difficulty here. The best transitions are either words that have no meaning in that context ("and" is often a safe choice), or words that precisely define the transition. I suspect "however" and "therefore" are on the road to losing most of their previous meanings one of these days, but I still see people being careful and sparing with them in professional writing, using "therefore" to mean something like "it logically or naturally follows or followed" and "however" to mean almost (but not quite) the same thing as "but". - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer to link "long tons", "knots" and "nautical miles" at the first occurrence in both the infobox and the text (since some readers read one but not the other); does anyone have objections? Apart from linking, I prefer not to get into questions of what and how to convert because my thoughts are more in line with professional publishing (that conversions look awkward in main text) and less in line with WP:MOSNUM. I notice an unconverted "33,000 tons" in the text that you might or might not want to convert. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree on the link; I'm just not consistent. And 33,000 tons is now converted.
  • I'm fine with "Tosa-class battleship", "Tosa class ships", and with having both in the same article, and for me, this is a very small (but annoying) issue. You might be asked at FAC to be consistent one way or the other with the hyphen. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in the Sovetsky Soyuz article it should almost always be hyphenated. Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice you reverted me on adding a period to a caption, "per MOS". MOS says: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (noun phrases, sentence fragments) that should not end with a period. If a complete sentence occurs in a caption, that sentence and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period." If we need to reword that to make it clearer, let me know. "Kaga as completed; all three flight decks are visible forward" is not a nominal group, so it needs a period (or rewording, for instance: "Kaga as completed, with all three flight decks visible forward"). - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, a three-fer: "Kaga was armed with ten 20-centimeter (7.9 in)/50 3rd Year Type guns; one twin-gun Model B turret on each side of the middle flight deck and six in Model A1 casemates aft."
    • When I hit the semicolon, I thought: is this because there's a list where the elements of the list contain commas, so you have to separate the elements with semicolons? I had to get to the end of the sentence and add things up to verify that the second half of the sentence contained more information on those guns rather than additional guns, so I traded in the semicolon for a colon here.
    • I'm going to need help knowing what to do with "Model A1". On the one hand, WP:MOSTM and AP Stylebook are both very skeptical of forcing our typeface to match manufacturers' conventions, because if you gave them the chance, manufacturers would insist that their product always be displayed accompanied by red blinking lights and loud car horns. We have to draw the line somewhere, and WP:MOSTM and AP Stylebook draw the line in approximately the same place: we don't budge an inch. OTOH, material that is mostly aimed at a technical audience tends to follow whatever the technical conventions are; a math article that used an "S" to represent "integral" would just look silly. So: is A1 a standard nomenclature intended for a technical audience? Would "A-1" look silly? I'm leaning towards MOSTM on this one but it's not my call.
    • Readers get annoyed if they can't even match a picture or a concept to the words you're using. A link would be nice, but I would object if a FAC reviewer required it, for "ten 20-centimeter (7.9 in)/50 3rd Year Type guns", because you don't have to have any idea what a "3rd Year Type" gun is to picture a 20-cm 50-caliber gun. But "Model A1 casemate", I'm not so sure about; casemates come in all shapes and sizes, and I really have no way of knowing what this thing is or how it functions, without at least a hint, a little more description, or a link. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no information on Japanese casemates, unlike turrets, and have deleted their type.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Chicago and per discussions at WT:MOS (I can dig them up if you want), it's "from X to Y" and "between X and Y", not "from X–Y" and "between X–Y". (I made the change.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right and I should spell out the numbers as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the rear of each side of the flight deck": which flight deck? - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, I can tell from one of the images.[reply]
  • Conway (ATWFS, p. 180) says the rebuilding was "from 1934 to 1935", but I used 1933 in the lead earlier based on your information; your information seems more specific, do you want to keep that? - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conway also says "... abandoned, she sank when the aviation fuel tanks exploded." Is he 0 for 2 here? - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted ostensibly; that implies falsehood. The reason given was why the heavy guns were fitted, nothing false about it. But people (the Japanese, Americans and Germans) didn't think it through.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • VMSB-241, VT-6, VS-6 and VB-6 aren't going to mean anything to most readers, so a little description would be helpful, especially since all those links are red. "Torpedo Squadron 6 (VT-6)" would work I think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The type of aircraft flown by each squadron is given in close proximity to the unit designations. Do you really think that readers can't make that link?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... shot down all fifteen, leaving only a single survivor treading water." There's an WP:EGG problem here; putting the name of the survivor either in the text or in a note would probably be best. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "literally blew out the hangar sides" is a little informal; I made the edit, but got reverted by another editor. "literally" has to go, since it's not likely anyone would think you meant that metaphorically; one option would be "blew out the entire hangar sides". I also got reverted adding "(aviation fuel)" after avgas; it's fine either way, your call. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • literally is gone; I'm OK with avgas as is since it's linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After all that, I guess I better Support (per the usual disclaimer) or people will get the idea I hated it; you did good, and you know more about copyediting than the typical successful writer. Keep it up. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments. About time we had another birdfarm make the run towards FA :P Just a few observations: not sure if there A-class nitpicky or FA-class nitpicky, so treat with as you see fit.
    • At two sentances, the "Armor" section is probably too small to deal with as a separate section. Maybe roll it into the above section for "Armament and armor"?
      • Done
    • It might be worth describing makeup of the carrier's air group in the text of the article...probably wouldn't need more than a paragraph all up describing what they were, how many, and their roles. You could roll it into a renamed "Flight deck arrangements", which at the moment has hangar details in addition to the flight decks.
      • Unfortunately I haven't found a source for what the air group was like prior to Pearl Harbor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any other sources that deal with Kaga's role at Midway? Some variety amongst the cites would be nice.
      • Shattered Sword is the best source on the battle yet published.
    • Is there any more information available on searches for the wreck of Kaga? Was the Nauticos search a specific attempt to find the ship, or were they looking for other things and had a "Hmm, that's funny" moment? Were there other attempts to find the wreck?
      • They were doing a general search for the carriers as part of a test of a new acoustic imaging system.
        • A line or two of context to that effect would be a good addition, methinks. -- saberwyn 02:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More if I come up with any. Brilliant job so far. -- saberwyn 06:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I want to support this article, which is very comprehensive, well sourced and well illustrated, but it needs a bit more work:
    • The first sentence suggests that the ship was originally named "Kaga Province" - is this correct?
      • No, the formerly is present because the province is no longer a governmental entity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that the Japanese carriers at Midway were "ambushed" by American aircraft as is claimed in the introduction - these aircraft searched for and found the ships
    • "designated for scrapping" is a bit confusing - it might be better to say that it was decided to scrap the ships
      • Not sure that is an issue, but whatever. Changed.
    • The sentence which begins "This heavy gun armament was provided..." is uncited
    • "Kaga's funnel gases were collected in a pair of long horizontal ducts which discharged at the rear of each side of the flight deck, in spite of predictions by a number of prominent naval architects that they would not keep the hot gases away from the flight deck" should probably be broken into two sentences
    • Is anything known about the ship's service between 1929 and 1932, and is it possible to say more about her activities in the 1930s?
      • If you find anything more substantial than what I've provided, I'll be happy to incorporate it into the article. Even Peattie doesn't discuss her activities during these periods.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The data on the characteristics of the ship's guns in the article's prose seems unnecessary and greatly disrupts the flow of the article. Material such as "They fired 23.45-kilogram (51.7 lb) projectiles at a rate between eight and fourteen rounds per minute at a muzzle velocity of 700–725 m/s (2,300–2,380 ft/s); at 45°, this provided a maximum range of 14,800 meters (16,185 yd), and a maximum ceiling of 9,400 meters (30,840 ft)" (and many other examples) is heavy going and of marginal value in this article given that it's about an aircraft carrier - this kind of detail belongs in the articles on the guns.
      • Sorry, no. All ships without a class article get this level of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my view this kind of material is trivial in this article and renders chunks of it difficult to read, particularly to non-specialists. Moreover, it's not consistent with the FA and A class articles on the carriers HMAS Melbourne and Sydney, both of which were modified so heavily as to be unique ships from early points in their career. In addition it's unclear to me why if this kind of detail is considered necessary on the ship's guns it isn't provided for equally important topics such as the ship's machinery, radar, communications equipment, accommodation and, of course, air wing. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I honestly could care less what's been done on other carrier FAs. My own policy is that all singleton ships get the full technical treatment regarding armament, armor, etc. as there's no other place to put it since there's no class article (the proper home for all that detail). See HMS Queen Mary for an example that simply hasn't made it to ACR yet. And, no, I don't agree that it is best relegated to the gun article, if any. As for the other stuff you mention, I've reached the limits of my sources, or of Japanese technology since no radar was fitted. Again, if I knew what the early air wing consisted of I'd have given that information, but I simply cannot find any references that lists that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a reasonable request that we not vary too much on the level of detail that strikes some people as technical. OTOH, I have two objections to this objection: I see similar levels of detail all the time (for instance, in the article I'm busy copyediting at the moment, SMS Blücher). The other objection I think I'll insert into what is turning into an ongoing discussion at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quality of the article's prose is sufficient to meet the A class criteria, but I think that a copy edit would be helpful before this goes to a FAC.
      • Thanks for the comments, but do you have any more detailed criticism than the above? General comments like yours do absolutely nothing towards pointing out issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The whole thing could to with a mild copy edit, but there's nothing that's so bad it justifies being highlighted. Given that this was a suggestion towards changes prior to a FAC I'm a bit surprised by the tone of your response. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You managed to push one of my buttons about copy-edits. Dank was kind enough to go through it with a fine-tooth coomb and I can't find anything objectionable so telling me that it needed one, without providing specifics, is less than useful, IMO. I asked at the start of this ACR for specific suggestions for improvements on the prose, not generic statements. I'm happy to make changes if they're pointed out, but I refuse to get wrapped around the axle in trying to figure out what exactly was meant by general comments as I find it very easy to second-guess myself about my writing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that this is an article about an aircraft carrier, I was surprised that it provides very little coverage of the composition of her air wing over time - a section or equivalent on this topic might be justified.
    • On that topic, it should be noted that Kaga was the trials ship for the famous Zero fighter in June 1940 (see Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power, p. 91) Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't think that that was particularly significant, plus there's a problem with the dates. According to Lengerer she's being overhauled that month and June isn't late enough in the overhaul for her likely to be available to conduct said trials.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nick-D felt that the article needs copyediting before FAC; I did it once, and I'm going through it again (and not finding that much ... can you point me to anything in particular, Nick?) Only thing I've been reverted on this time around is, I changed: [The hangars opened onto the middle and lower flight decks to allow aircraft to take off directly from the] "hangars, while" [landing operations were in progress on the main flight deck above.] to: "hangars at the same time that". The point is that "while" usually has one of 3 senses, roughly corresponding to "and", "on the other hand", and "at the same time as". My guess was that the last sense was meant here, is that right? - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I prefer while, which was used in the 3rd sense. I don't remember reverting that sentence, though it's possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Loosmark reverted me. "While" is fine but only without the comma; I've now fixed it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are different interpretations of this at WP:LINK: "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other ...". I think the objection you're going to see at FAC is that, in general, Wikipedia readers can probably figure out that if they want to know about "torpedo bombers", and they see a link to Mitsubishi B1M3 torpedo bombers, they can get there by clicking on that link. This is coming up a lot, so I'm checking to see if it's cool with everyone for me to condense two side-by-side links (Mitsubishi B1M3 torpedo bombers) into one. Of course, you can always link "torpedo bombers" somewhere else in the article where it's not right next to another link. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you tell me a little more about the word "bunkerage"? It's not in standard dictionaries (in that sense), most of the 42K ghits are not in that sense, and I can't find a useful Wikipedia link. Could we either define it in context or use a different word? - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It means fuel storage; I've added another entry to the nautical terms glossary for it. But I've changed the wording regardless.
  • I don't know why people care about this, but they seem to care: it's a MOS violation to write "30 Zeros, 23 Vals, and 30 Kates" but "twenty-six Nakajima B5N". Either write out every number less than roughly 100 or every number less than 10 (your choice), except for numbers in front of units and a few other exceptions. The most recent conversation was Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_116#WP:MOS#Numbers as figures or words. If you tell me which way you want to go, I'll make the edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly I'm having issues wrapping my head around this sort of petty crap as I was trying to follow the general statement about spelling out quantities at the head of the section while making allowances for the conversion template. Choose one way or another and I'll try to remember which way to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood. Although WP:MOS allows either, the cutoff between nine and 10 (which, interestingly enough, has to be written "9 and 10" or "nine and ten" ... go figure) is the heavy favorite. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment change to Support

  • The aircraft totals in the inf box do not add up. 90 total 72 + 18 storage / 18 + 37 + 37 = 92
    • That's why it has a date after the second list, so that you'll know that's the airplane inventory at a different time. Theoretically, everything in infoboxes would be better off with dates since armament and aircraft were always changing, but the sources don't always give a date and we tend not to list it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also it needs a cite unless I missed it they type and totals of aircraft carried is not covered anywhere in the article.
    • You're the third person to ask. Sturm says: "See my response to saberwyn's second comment." - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the service in World War II section - both 9 A6M Zeros and nine A6M Zeros in the first paragraph.
    • See above. It's a judgment call based on this from WP:MOSNUM: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." If two quantities are in the same list, but widely separated, it's hard to say whether that rule kicks in or not. Apart from that and a few other exceptions, we're writing it out for "nine" or less and using numerals for 10 or greater. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the battle of Midway section - sixteen Marine SBD Dauntless dive-bombers - a dozen B-17 Flying Fortress and fourteen Devastators is used should it not be 16, 12 and 14 ?
    • Thanks, fixed. If you see any more, please let me know; we were originally going the other way (writing out most of the numbers less than 100). - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 5, 6, 24 and 29 would appear to need ndash;'s added
    • Only if some of the information came from pages in between. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also a mixture of ref style used should ref 7 be pp.102–103 not 102–03? same with ref 21,22 and 33
    • Are we looking at the same article? - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is ref 24 pp. 126, 515 or p. 126 and 515
  • This may already have been asked and answered but what makes http://www.navweaps.com reliable.

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Group While looking to verify the aircraft capacity as per Jim's comment I found the aircraft for the early air group that I'd overlooked before. I've also rewritten the Pearl Harbor section as it seems that I'd confused some of Kaga's and Akagi's targets.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes if you check ref 1 its written pp.185–187 but later on ref 7 is pp.102–03 and the same mixture of style is used throughout --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah now I get it ... you're objecting to "187" vs. "03". I don't see people objecting to that much, but I can change it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support - meets the A-class requirements in my view, though I am undecided on the aircraft naming issue. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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_Kaga&oldid=1138360436"