Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fusō class battleship

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 -- Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fusō class battleship

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)(Prof)

The Fuso battleships were the first super-dreadnoughts of the Japanese Navy, and were considered the most advanced battleships of their time when launched. By the time the Second World War rolled around, they were seriously obsolete, and their only major contribution was getting sunk during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. This article passed GA in November. Respectfully submit for A-Class. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Tech review:
  • one dab link reported by tools: [1];
  • no issues with ext links;
  • images lack alt text (although it is not a requirement for A class, you might consider adding it in). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment
  • There was actually a previous one off Fuso class of battleship, an ironclad named Fuso around the time of the Russo-Japanese War was classified by the Japanese Imperial Navy as a battleship. A hatnote might be a good idea to prevent confusion.XavierGreen (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed this article for GA and I feel it's thoroughly A-class material. —Ed!^(talk) 23:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments:
  • in the Citations section, you have "Evans and Peattie" and "Evans & Peattie" - this is presented slightly differently, but should be made consistent;
  • in the References section, endashes should be added for the year ranges in the titles for Breyer and Stille;
  • in the References, per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, the capitalisation of the Skulski work title should be The Battleship Fusō: Anatomy of a Ship (add caps for "Ship");
  • in the References, most of the ISBNs have hyphens but those for Breyer and Gardiner & Gray don't. These should be consistent (either all with, or all without);
  • in the References, I think there is a typo - "Jackon". I think this should be "Jackson", please confirm and tweak if necessary. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I've fixed these issues myself. The issue with the dab links still needs to be sorted out. Here is the new link: [2]. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Dab Link stuff is fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Basically there but a few comments;
  • Is it possible to clarify that horizontal armour = armoured deck at some point in the article. "Armoured deck" is a rather clearer term to the lay reader IMV.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Don't think that the notes in the infobox are helpful.

Removed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• • The first two sentences of the "Armor" section appear contradictory; either she was more lightly armoured or she wasn't. Also appears to contradict the section of "Design" where it says the Fuso design outmatched its US equivalent in all areas.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Is it worth having the configuration immediately post the 1930s refit in the infobox? As noted in the text it changed dramatically.

You're right that the big changes all occurred in the 1930s, but I wanted to give a sense of the configuration of the class as they sailed to battle when they were lost. Plus a lot of the 1930s changes are tricky to cover in numbers alone; it's much more qualitative and descriptive than quantitative (the number of big guns didn't change, just their firing mechanism and elevation). For now I've left it as 1944. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Regards, The Land (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I enjoyed it. Some minor comments follow:
  • "Eight-eight fleet" - capitalisation is inconsistent (I don't which is right though!)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• • "George Thurston's design of the Kongō's" - is the apostrophe in "Kongo's" right? (I don't think it should be there, but I'm often wrong)

• • "Vickers files" - in this case, I think there should be an apostrophe after Vickers (but ditto!)
  • Picture: "Yamashiro, Fusō and the fast-battleship Haruna in the late 1930's." - Could the caption give an indication of which one is which? e.g. "front to rear..." or "foreground..."
  • "by the commencement World War II" - missing "of", i.e. "commencement of World War..."
  • "torpedo bulges" - might be worth explaining or linking what a torpedo bulge is (e.g. a means of firing a torpedo? Protection against being hit by a torpedo?)
  • "This reconstruction fitted antiaircraft guns, lengthened her stern, fitted emergency damage-control systems, added rangefinders and reconfigured her secondary armament" - were there emergency damage-control and rangefinders before? (i.e. are these "new" systems, etc.)
  • "On 24 October, Fusō was attacked by American carrier aircraft in the Sulu Sea, with her aircraft catapult destroyed by a bomb hit to her stern." It would be potentially clearer to say that "...and her aircraft catapult was destroyed..." (else you could be saying that, when she was attacked, her aircraft catapult was unavailable because it had been destroyed).
  • "a pagoda-mast that extended further aft and was of a heavier appearance" - does this mean that it wasn't in fact heavier? (e.g. could you simply say "a heavier pagoda-mast..."?)
  • Picture: "a twin-127mm gun mount on board the Japanese battleship Nagato. The mounts used on board the Fusō were the same model." Capitalisation of "a" at the beginning.
  • "casemate" - worth explaining or linking.
  • Footnote 2. "The #3 turret on Fuso pointed forward when stowed, while Yamashiro's pointed after." Should that be "aft", as opposed to "after"?
• Hchc2009 (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This article is in good shape, but I have a few comments
  • The first paragraph of the lead seems a bit repetitive (probably due to 'class' appearing in all of the first three sentences) and could probably be improved so that it better grabs readers' attention
  • "Both served minor patrolling duty" - is poor grammar
  • "She operated off Biak Island in May 1944" - the Biak reinforcement force Fusō was part of never made it to Biak so this isn't accurate. I'd suggest something like 'she took part in an unsuccessful attempt to reinforce Biak' with a link to the Battle of Biak article (which reminds me, I really should start the article on Operation Kon I was planning a while ago).
  • The statement that the ships' armour was "typical for a pre-Jutland battleship" is both unclear (I think I know what this means, but readers less familiar with the topic won't) and contradicted by the statements later in the para that the armour was unusually light for a battleship of the period.
  • Can anything at all be said about the human side of these ships? - for instance, how did their crew numbers change over time, where they comfortable, how were they crewed in 1944 after being in reserve for so long?, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Dank's copyedit managed to get most of this stuff. As for the crew composition, none of the sources I managed to find (and I found pretty much everything that's published without getting into OR) mentions the composition of the crew. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The claim that she operated off Biak is still in the article. Lots of sources are available for this by Google searching 'Operation Kon' Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support My comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments I made all the following edits; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)
• "The Fusō class battleships (Japanese: 扶桑) were a class of warships": Noting the missing hyphen, the objection above about repetition of the word "class", and the recommendation at WP:LEAD to get the whole page title in bold without links if possible, I tried this: "The Fusō-class battleships (Japanese: 扶桑) were two battleships ..." - Dank (push to talk)
• Does anyone know why {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Fusō''-class battleship}} doesn't work? It works fine without the hyphen, but we use the hyphen in this case. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, it worked fine after I moved the page to include the hyphen in the title. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• So ... does anyone know, are we formatting the titles to match the formatting in the first line of the article or not? I reformatted the title. - Dank (push to talk)
• "were considered the first super-dreadnoughts of the IJN": were the first super-dreadnoughts of the IJN. Judgment call; it's complicated. There were no other ships that could have been considered the first super-dreadnoughts of the IJN, right? - Dank (push to talk)
• "Both served minor patrolling duty": judgment call, feel free to revert, I went with: Both patrolled briefly off the coast of China ... - Dank (push to talk)
• "contemporary": although historians use the word a lot, it's usually best to avoid it outside academia, since it has two contradictory, widely used meanings: of that time, and of this time, i.e. modern. - Dank (push to talk)
• "reconstructed from 1930–35": reconstructed from 1930 to 1935, per Chicago 6.78 and discussions at WT:MOS. "From" requires "to" and "between" requires "and" instead of a dash. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Battle of Surigao Strait": I added a link, although it's only a link to a section of Battle of Leyte Gulf, which you had just linked. I've seen the argument go both ways. My thinking is that the reader doesn't know that they can find it in Battle of Leyte Gulf without a link, and the poor copyeditor also doesn't know that the term can remain unlinked without some digging, so it saves everyone some trouble to link it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Added hyphens for a large number of cases of "X class [noun]". - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• "class'":class's - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• "battle-line": battle line - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Satō Tetsutarō—a Japanese Navy admiral and military theorist—speculated that conflict would inevitably arise between Japan and at least one of their two main rivals": per WP:EMDASH and Chicago, I changed these dashes to commas.
• "Eight-eight fleet": Caps are a judgment call. I went with caps, since caps are used at Eight-Eight Fleet Program. OTOH, whenever you have something that looks a little odd and involves a judgment call, don't go out of your way to repeat the odd-looking phrase; this one was repeated a lot in one section. I replaced it in most cases with "the program".
• "set back": setback
• "USN": US Navy (It's very short and predominates in most sources over the acronym. Another consideration: you only use the acronym in one section.)
• "battle-fleet": battle fleet
• "The first true battleships of the eight-eight fleet": Per Kawachi class battleship, I went with: The first battleships built for the Eight-Eight Fleet Program. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Naval Emergency Expansion bill", "Emergency Naval Expansion Bill": odds are one of these is wrong.
• "drew heavily upon": per Chicago 5.220, generally use "upon" only when followed by a condition or event.
• "Kongō's": Kongō class
• "The resultant design": This design - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Two vessels of the Fusō class": The two vessels of the Fusō class - Dank (push to talk)
• "and commissioned 8 November 1915 and attached to the 1st Battleship Division": deleted the first "and"
• "... throughout her career; the first beginning on 12 April 1930.": comma, not semi-colon; the second part isn't a complete sentence.
• "In the second phase, started at Kure in September 1932, fitted 127 mm (5.0 in) dual-purpose guns and additional shell-rooms.": not a sentence; I reworded.
• "from 26 February 1937-15 September 1941": "from" requires "to" per Chicago 6.78 and discussions at WT:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 05:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Laid down 20 November 1913, launched 3 November 1915, and commissioned 31 March 1917.": not a sentence; fixed.
• "#3": No. 3
• "the reverse of on her sister.": the reverse of her sister's
• "afterwards" afterward in AmEng per Chicago 5.220, at "toward"
• "the final result": the result (judgment call)
• "armour": armor
• "support-force", "task-force": no hyphens
• "designated as": designated
• "between 03:23–03:53": between requires "and" per Chicago 6.78
• "All but ten of her crew—including Admiral Nishimura—were lost.": dangling participle: all including, or ten of her crew including? I made a guess. - Dank (push to talk) 05:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• "14-inch (360 mm)/45 calibre naval guns": probably 14-inch/45-caliber naval guns, but see WT:MHC#Hyphen_question. I only object to Canadian English in articles about the War in the Pacific (WWII), since the US was so dominant there; if you want to go with Canadian English, that works for me, but we'll have some converting to do. Per WP:MOSNUM (unless someone has changed it), don't include conversions inside links; readers can find the converted figures at the link if they care. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• "-5": −5, which can be written −5. See MOSNUM. This is more important in mathematical contexts than here, since the hyphen won't read correctly as a minus sign in some formulas. But if you're headed to FAC, it's best to follow MOSNUM.
• "centreline": centerline
• Some are okay with "metre" in an article largely in AmEng, some aren't.
• "upper-deck": upper deck
• "High-Explosive": high-explosive
• "aboard the Fusō battleships": aboard Fusō and Yamashiro
• "... their firing arcs and training speed were too heavily restricted to be wielded as antiaircraft weapons.": I went with "their restricted firing arcs and training speed in casemates aboard Fusō and Yamashiro made them unsuitable as antiaircraft weapons." "Wielded" was a dangling participle here; firing arcs aren't wielded. There's a good argument that some readers will misunderstand "training speed".
• "High Explosive (HE) antiaircraft shells": high-explosive antiaircraft shells
• Consistency is needed on "twin mounts" vs. "twin-mounts". If you go with the latter, then "six twin and eight triple-mounts" should be "six twin- and eight triple-mounts", with a hanging hyphen. I'm usually seeing "twin mount" used as a noun and "twin-mount" as an adjective, but "twin-mount" as a noun might be fine, I'm not sure.
• Some Wikipedians don't like blank sections and subsections; you have ==Specifications== followed by ===Armament=== followed by ====Main Battery==== with no text in between. I don't have a position on what's right; I would have omitted the "Armament" header and gone with ===Main Battery=== and ===Secondary Armament===; it's clear enough that you're talking about armament. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• to preserve the buoyancy -> to preserve buoyancy
• "Nevertheless, in exchange for higher speeds the Fusō class sacrificed ...": comma after "speeds". Please read User:Dank/MIL#Paired commas, because this mistake accounts for a lot of my copyediting edits. This is actually one of those cases where the comma isn't strictly necessary, but it's better with it, and if you're having trouble with A-Class Reviews, it may be better to stick with a rule that's easy to learn and apply rather than experiment.
• "Even after these improvements, the armor still suffered from a fatal shortcoming, in that it was not capable of withstanding 14 inch shells.": Both ships made it through most of WWII before succumbing, one was sunk entirely by torpedoes, and the other was hit first by torpedoes, so "fatal" isn't the word I'd use to describe the vulnerability to 14-inch shells. Reworded.
• "produced a higher power": produced more power.
• "powerplants": power plants
• "four Kampon Turbines, which had an increased output": four Kampon Turbines with an increased output ... See WP:MHCL#Conciseness.
• "25 kn": I prefer 25 knots, at least in the text; it's generally fine to abbreviate in tables. There's some disagreement over "kn" vs. "kt", and "knots" is only 5 letters.
• Support - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help again Dank! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You bet. Fair warning: with my current workload, I've now started opposing some instead of doing all the work myself ... I'm not looking for perfection, but I'm looking for improvement over time, for sharing some of the workload, from all the writers. - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I would have done a lot of copyediting myself had it been any other period except the Christmas break. My apologies for not picking up more of that slack myself. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 16:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm a fan of your work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• A1 Sources pretty good, some work: Fifelfoo (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Given in References, but not used, "Garzke, William H.; Dulin, Robert O. (1985). Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-101-3."
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • References: Standardise Annapolis's state: Maryland or no state given
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Publisher location required: Jackson, Robert (2000).
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906–1921. is an edited collection. Were articles individually authored? If so, individual articles used need to be cited with their article title, article authors, etc.
    • If they were individually authored, none of the editions actually specify that. To the best of my knowledge Gardiner and Gray are as specific as we can get in terms of the authors. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Notes: ""Combined Fleet - tabular history of Yamashiro". Parshall, Jon; Bob Hackett, Sander Kingsepp, & Allyn Nevitt. 2010. http://www.combinedfleet.com/Yamashiro.htm. Retrieved 9 November 2010." Authors come before titles. Source actually appears to be: "Bob Hackett (2010). "IJN Yamashiro: Tabular Record of Movement," Revision 10. Hackett, Bob; Kingsepp, Sander; Ahlberg, Lars (eds.) Senkan! Stories and Battle Histories of the IJN's Battleships Online: Imperial Japanese Navy Page [www.combinedfleet.com]. Last Revised 9 November 2010. Retrieved 9 November 2010.
    • Yes I am very displeased with Hackett et al.'s choice to rename every section differently depending on if it is a link or a page title, grumble grumble. This is why I stick around wikipedia to resolve horrible citation issues like this one.
      • I've fixed all the issues and taken a crack at the last one, though I'm not entirely sure whether I've fixed it. I'm a bit confused in terms of what needs fixing. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Its a tricky bastard, but I fixed it for you. Cite book etc. may actually be more appropriate in future. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: this ACR is due to be closed in the next 24 hours. If Fifelfoo's concerns can be addressed, it can be listed for closing by an uninvolved co-ord. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

One of my concerns is still outstanding as well Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed yours Nick-D. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• My concerns have been addressed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

---

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.