Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

These nominations predate the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and have been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi (May 2013)

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath, starting with {{TFAR nom|article=NAME OF ARTICLE}}.

The result was: not scheduled by Bencherlite ^Talk 13:29, 2 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Akagi was an aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Originally built as one of two Amagi-class battlecruisers, Akagi was converted under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty into an aircraft carrier. Akagi's aircraft first supported Japanese troops in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s. With other carriers, she took part in the Pearl Harbor raid in December 1941 and the invasion of Rabaul in the Southwest Pacific in January 1942. The following month her aircraft participated in a combined carrier airstrike on Darwin, Australia, helping secure the conquest of the Dutch East Indies by Japanese forces. The ship participated in the Indian Ocean raid in March–April and her aircraft helped to sink the British heavy cruisers Dorsetshire, Cornwall, and the small aircraft carrier Hermes. During the Battle of Midway in June, Akagi's aircraft attacked the defenses of Midway Atoll and the Japanese carriers were attacked by American aircraft from Midway and the carriers Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown. Dive bombers from Enterprise severely damaged Akagi; when it became obvious she could not be saved, she was scuttled by Japanese destroyers to prevent her from falling into enemy hands. (Full article...)

Support as nominator. 71st anniversary of her loss at the Battle of Midway. No warship TFAs since the beginning of May.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality, — Cirt (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NB 4 June 2013 is the 100th anniversary of the launch of SMS Markgraf. Thoughts? Are there other dates that would work equally well or better for either article? Bencherlite^Talk 09:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means run Markgraf as its centennial is rather more important than Akagi's 71 anniversary. I can always nom Akagi next year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi (October 2013)

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 7, 2013 by Bencherlite ^Talk 22:23, 21 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Akagi was the second aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) to enter service, and the first large or "fleet" carrier. She was converted to an aircraft carrier while still under construction to comply with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, and figured prominently in the development of the IJN's revolutionary doctrine that grouped carriers together, concentrating their air power. The ship and her aircraft first saw combat during the Second Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s. During the Pacific War, she took part in the Attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 and the invasion of Rabaul in the Southwest Pacific in January 1942 as flagship of the First Air Fleet. Over the next several months her aircraft bombed Darwin, Australia, assisted in the conquest of the Dutch East Indies, and helped sink a British heavy cruiser and an Australian destroyer in the Indian Ocean Raid. After bombarding American forces on Midway Atoll during the Battle of Midway in June, Akagi and the other carriers were attacked by aircraft from Midway and three American carriers. Akagi was severely damaged, and she was scuttled by Japanese destroyers to prevent her from falling into enemy hands. (Full article...)

4 points for widely covered, anniversary and one-year-old FA. Last warship TFA was Lexington on 3 October so no points there. I've cut about about as much as I can out of this blurb, but it may still need tweaking, so feel free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Japanese battleship Haruna is TFA for November 14, as a "free pick" rather than a TFAR nomination (as I thought it was about time we had another warship) so 2 points. If people prefer, I could swap Haruna for a warship from another country to avoid two Japanese ships in succession. Trimmed to 1,999 characters.Bencherlite ^Talk 09:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to the blurb look fine. I don't really care about two Japanese ships in moderately close succession, but others might. I just like having non-Anglophone ships on TFA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, historical, educational, high quality, and helps with WP:WORLDVIEW. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetry

Comment: When someone makes needless personal comments, it suggests he or she can't make comments about the ideas. I don't understand why the nominator is complaining on my Talk page (or what he's complaining about) or undoing my edits to the article. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was complaining because you changed <refname=I8/> to <refname="I8"/>, for example, which is a completely unnecessary edit. Such edits don't change anything for the reader, and don't improve the functioning of the references for editors, so why make them? Sturmvogel's point was that, if you wanted to make minor edits to articles, you would be better off making edits somewhere that actually improved things for readers/editors. I agree with him, for what it's worth. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I made no such edit. Secondly, it is needlessly rude to make snotty comments about somebody doing something you define as harmless. The irony is that the gist of the complaint was that such edits are a waste of time. The complaining about harmless edits is the waste of time. Anyway, I have to wonder if other well-meaning editors were run off the article in the past by similar tactics. No reviewer can check everything. To support an article, I need to have faith in the process. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the information of the other editors here, "Beyondallmeaning" was a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user and has also been indefinitely blocked [1]. The user should not have been making any edits at all so all of their comments should be disregarded.Smeat75 (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The winners of any war generally get most of the subsequent coverage and it is good to see this fine article on another major aspect of the losing side of WWII nominated for the front page. – Tim riley (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent article and running it on 07DEC13 would be entirely appropriate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree. HowardMorland (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]