Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Hyūga

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Japanese battleship Hyūga

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Hyūga/archive1

Built during World War I, Hyuga didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Hyuga's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and remnants of AmEng in preparation for a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: G'day, Sturm, I started taking a look at this one, but then my fever got worse and I realised I probably shouldn't be reading something this technical in my current condition. Anyway, here are some observations from my flu addled brain. Apologies if some of it is wrong, I will try to come back when I feel a bit better: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of examples of US English: "meters", "armor" and "draft"
inconsistent: "laid down...on 6 May 1915" (body) v. "Laid down: 16 May 1915" (infobox)
the infobox mentions 27 July 1945 as the date the ship ran aground, but I couldn't locate that in the body?
the length between perpendiculars doesn't seem to be in the body, so is uncited in the infobox
the standard load displacement only seems to be in the infobox
the infobox lists the ship's speed as 23 knots, but the body says 24 knots?
the infobox lists a complement of 1,198, but the body mentions 1,360 and 1,376?
the infobox lists 16 x 14 cm guns, but the body says twenty
inconsistent: "length to 215.8 metres (708 ft 0 in)" v. "Length: 216 m (708 ft 8 in)"
- Wow, I really skimmed over validating the infobox on this article. Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Only a couple of minor comments:

Is it possible to say anything about living conditions on the ship?
- It was significantly worse than on the Fuso's as the complement increased, but the berthing areas were reduced due to the rearrangement of the amidships turrets. But that's better left for the class article, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and the ship was completed on that same day, too late for service in World War I" - I might well be wrong, but I didn't think that any of the Japanese battleships were used operationally in the war? Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A few Japanese capital ships were employed in the Siege of Tsingtao, but your point is generally correct in that there wasn't much of an expectation of the Japanese fleet to take an active role after 1914. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Parsec's correct, but I always like to emphasize that the ships didn't do anything in WWI when appropriate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, fair enough on both issues. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by PM

Rupert has picked up most of the technical things that came to my notice
were the secondary guns in single mounts? It says so in the infobox, but not in the body
- Good catch.
suggest "According to the historian Mark Stille"
- Howzabout "naval historian" instead?
the first reconstruction speed is 24.5 kn in the body, but 25 kn in the infobox
- Good catch.
link Siberian Intervention and Second Sino-Japanese War in the body
- Unless it's a really long article, I only link once per article.
technically you should probably spell out IJN at first mention in the body
- Why? It's spelled out in the lede and that should suffice.
if there were a dozen of each aircraft, that doesn't add up to 22?
- Correct, clarified that some of them were reserve aircraft, which may have been stowed partially dissassembled. Annoyingly, my sources aren't very clear on this.
once Matsuda is mentioned as being a Rear Admiral, you can drop the rank
- Indeed.
Tantalus should probably be HMS, to be consistent with the USS used with the American ships
- Good idea.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for reviewing, I hope that my changes will suffice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by lingzhi

Lengerer 2009 in notes but not refs. Ditto Parshall & Tully. Whitley in refs but not notes. otherwise well done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catches.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the post-reconstruction diagram
- Done
Painting titles don't need quotation marks
- Done.
What was the publication date for the Japanese Naval Warship Photo Album?
- If published in 2005, that presents a problem for the URAA tag in use, which specifies an earlier publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hyugampl5683.jpg: per the tag, this needs a publication date
File:Ise1944.png: what data source was used to create this diagram? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: I believe this edit to the template is wrong. If the photo was demonstrably taken before 1 January 1947 (which this was, given the war), then it's either in the public domain because it was published within ten years, or it's in the public domain because it wasn't published within ten years. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would probably be best to take that up at Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is true, but that's only for the template, not for whether this image satisfies WP:MH/A criterion 5. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. Is anything further known about publication history? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nikkimaria: - can you clarify whether you're signing off on the images? I'd like to close this review if we can. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Not quite yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nikkimaria: For which images? The ones from the Japanese Naval Warship Photo Album? No, not in English-language works, anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Asked Alexpl for image attribution on Commons. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which he's done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nikkimaria: Can you clarify which images, if any, you still have questions about on this one? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - The three sourced to the Photo Album, as a 2005 publication date doesn't work with the URAA tag in use. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nikkimaria: Look again at the wording of the Japanese tag, right after the three bullet points. It specifically states that the images are out of copyright by 1970, which predates the URAA date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I see the wording in the Japanese tag, but if the first publication date in this particular case was 2005, I'm not sure that claim is accurate. Look at commons:Commons:Hirtle_chart. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I can see why you might think that, but isn't that overriden by the third bullet of the PD-1996 tag? Which specifically states that it's out of copyright in the US if it was out of copyright in Japan before 1996.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The PD-1996 tag states it's out of copyright in the US if it meets all three points listed, the second of which is publication date before 1989/1964/relations. That's what I was referring to above in the PD-1996 tag not fitting with the circumstances here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Crap, you're right. I totally missed that all three bullet points have to apply.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        So, Sturm, it seems those images don't have workable licenses. Do you want to ping me when you've either replaced them or removed them? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've updated the publishing history to show that they were first published in 1974 thanks to a Japanese Wikipedian who looked them up for us. So we should be good now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did the earlier publication include a copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Why wouldn't it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Worldcat entry for the book if that helps any: [1] --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it did, we've still got an issue with that URAA tag per point one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This just keeps on getting better and better! Although I think that you mean bullet point 2. I'll ask the helpful Japanese Wikipedian to check.

I'd make the argument, though, that any copyright statement applies only to the text, as the photos were out of copyright by that date and asserting that they were is fraudulent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: As it's going to take a while to determine the true copyright status of these photos, I've replaced them so this review can be closed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2018 (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.