Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Hatsuse

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) 23:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Japanese battleship Hatsuse

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Continuing my series on ill-fated battleships, Hatsuse was a member of the first tranche of battleships built by the IJN using indemnity money paid by China after the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895. She served as a flagship during the initial stages of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905 and participated in the early battles. The ship struck two mines five months after the war began and sank with the loss of over half her crew. As usual, I'm looking for stray bits of AmEng and infelicitous prose in preparation for an eventual FAC.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Hatsuse (初瀬 Hatsuse) was a Shikishima-class pre-dreadnought battleship built Sea blue.
- Sorry, that's only two links.

@Sturmvogel 66: To me "Shikishima-class", "pre-dreadnought" and "battleship" are linked next to each other. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<feebly>Well, I meant to reduce it to only two links! Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Japan lacked the industrial capacity Pipe Japan to the Empire of Japan.
speed of 19.1 knots (35.4 km/h; 22.0 mph) from Round the nought here.
- Can't because the km/h conversion needs all three significant digits to display properly
ordered as part of the 10 Year Naval Expansion Programme Shouldn't it be "10-Year" or is that part of a proper noun?
- Fixed
the £30,000,000 indemnity paid by China after losing Pipe China to the Qing dinasty.
would be badly disorganized and weakened -ize?
including Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov's flagship American Vice Admiral.
Vice-Admiral is overlinked.
Link the "normal" in the infobox.
- Can't.

Why not?
'Cause I don't know exactly how the IJN defined normal displacement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

length, beam, draught and displacement don't match between the body and infobox
- I'd like to think that someday I'll actually remember to double-check that the infobox data matches that in the main body.
no idea what her crew was as a private ship?
- A couple of sources quote 741, without specifying flagship or private ships, but I'm not inclined to trust that figure as an admiral and his staff generally don't come close to 100 bodies in my experience.
the number of 3-pounders doesn't match between the body and infobox
where were the TTs located?

That's it from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PM.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

First, can I just comment what a stunning lead image that is, considering the age of it.

- It was a very crisp original in black-and-white, but colorizing it really makes it pop. I'm so glad that there's a fellow who's done hundreds of these as I don't have a clue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the first sentence of the description, I think it would be worth clarifying the location of the Royal Navy ("of the United Kingdom's Royal Navy." possibly?)
"maximum thickness of 10 in (254 mm)" Everywhere else, "inch" (or "inches") has been written in full, so it looks a bit odd not to be here; can it be changed for consistency?
On a similar vein, in the prose the guns are, for example, "12-inch (305 mm) guns", whereas in the infobox, it is listed as "12 in (305 mm) guns". I agree with shortening "inch" to "in" for space, but why drop the hyphen?
- By MOS abbreviated units don't retain their hyphen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I learn something new every day on Wiki. Harrias ^talk 10:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The ship was laid down by Armstrong Whitworth at their Elswick shipyard.." Again, clarification of the location would be beneficial. In fact, looking at this a bit more closely, the lead says "As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to build such warships, the ship was designed and built in the United Kingdom", but this claim isn't repeated in the body, and as such is not referenced?
- Sonofa... Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Port Arthur could do with linking in the body.
- It's short enough that I think that the link in the lede suffices.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a nice tidy piece of work. Harrias ^talk 18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice to hear. Thank your for your time to review it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Harrias could you please confirm whether you support this nomination or not. If you support then this one ready to go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly been asleep since Sturmvogel 66 responded to my comments. Will take another look later, there's no need to rush. Harrias ^talk 06:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good, no qualms supporting. Harrias ^talk 10:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Citations are formatted appropriately and consistently. (NFA)
Some FAC reviewers will complain about the mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 however. (optional change, NFA)
- That's fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment overly on whether the sources are considered reputable; but it is exclusively sourced to published offline sources which are likely to have undergone a robust review and editing process. (NFA)
As the sources are exclusively offline, I am unable to carry out any checks for close para-phrasing or copyvio, but I will AGF. (NFA) Harrias ^talk 18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Only one concern:

File:Colorized Hatsuse.jpg - how do we know this is a work of the UK government? The IWM hosts a lot of commercial photos as well. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Cause the commercial ones are attributed. Usually to Symonds & Co., IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2019 (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.