Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Japan/archive1

{{la|List of battleships of Japan}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured list tools|1=List of battleships of Japan}}

:Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

This is a list of all battleships built or acquired by Japan, covering the period between the advent of modern pre-dreadnought battleships in the 1890s and the end of Japan's status as a naval power of the first rank in 1945. This list is the capstone to the Japanese national subtopic of the Operation Majestic Titan special project. It just passed a MILHIST A-class review, so hopefully there aren't many problems that need to be addressed. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess lists never get old and long too. :) I'll review this one later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• {{xt|In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson announced the resumption}} Add "American" before "President".
• Good idea
• US v. U.S.
• Fixed
• {{xt|as part of Admiral Kurita's Center Force.[155][152]}} Re-order the ref here.
• Good catch
• See a lot of British afterwards.
• Fixed
• I could remember that you Sturm said to me "True, but I don't want to switch between Imperial and metric formats half-way through the list" however some tables tell to me that metric units are the primary units. Why that now?
• I think you're referring to gun calibers - the general rule of thumb is to have the primary unit the official name of the gun - Vickers didn't make a 35.6cm gun, they made a 14-inch gun, while the Kure Naval Arsenal didn't build 18.1-inch guns, they built 46cm guns

That's it, I think. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

:Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

::{{ping|CPA-5}}, was there anything else you'd like us to address? Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

::* Not really, I have probably forgotten this nomination. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, so just a few quibbles here:

• in the lead, suggest "and rebuilt the Kongō-class battlecruisers into fast battleships and modernized the existing ships"
• Good catch
• suggest "The ships were also assigned to the 1st Fleet before the Russo–Japanese War, were present..." to avoid starting a sentence with "Also"
• Done
• drop the comma after "Sagami and Suwo," and after "Pobeda"
• Done
• "by an air attack ion Kure Naval Base"
• Fixed
• which sub sank Shinano? Earlier you have named the sub that sank Kongō
• Added

That's all I could find. Nice job on this list. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

:Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

::No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• The first paragraph just has one ref right at the end - does that source the entire para?
• That's a question for {{ping|Sturmvogel 66}}
• I did some digging around, and it does seem to cover the whole paragraph
• "But to counter" - don't start a sentence with "but" - suggest changing "To counter the Imperial Chinese Beiyang Fleet in the early 1890s, however....."
• Works for me
• "they ordered" => "Japan ordered" (to make is absolutely clear who "they" were)
• Done
• "rebuilt the Kongō-class battlecruisers into fast battleships and modernizing the existing ships" - seems to be a bit of a grammatical mish-mash here - should it be "modernized"?
• Fixed per Peacemaker's comment above
• "As part of the 1st Fleet the sisters participated" - presume the "sisters" are the aforementioned ships? Might be worth clarifying.....
• Clarified
• "Sagami and Suwo, were originally" - don't need that comma
• Fixed
• "the Satsuma class were obsolete before they were even launched" - previously (eg under "Sagami and Suwo") you treat "class" as a singular noun, here it's plural - best to be consistent
• Good catch
• "it couldn't afford to upgrade all of them" => "it could not afford to upgrade all of them"
• Fixed
• I've just noticed that "sister ships" is linked under Ise class, even though it's about the eighth time the term is used. Best to link the first usage.
• Fixed
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Query - is anyone looking at the comments on this one? Since the FLC was started the article has only received a single edit, which was to add a wikilink, and none of the comments raised above seem to have been looked at in up to three weeks..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

:{{u|Parsecboy|Nate}}, just jogging your memory about these comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

::Thanks, yeah, I think Sturm and I got busy with other things. I'll get to these now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

:::{{ping|ChrisTheDude}} - is there anything else that needs to be addressed? Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Humblest apologies, I forgot all about this one. I will give it another once-over later today -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• No problem, we weren't exactly on the ball with responding to comments either ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed (though of course it's mostly books). Always neat to see an OMT list come through, even after all these years! Promoting. --PresN 01:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

{{FLCClosed|promoted}}

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.