Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese cruiser Ibuki (1943)

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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Japanese cruiser Ibuki (1943)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Ibuki was the lead ship of her class of heavy cruisers begun shortly after the start of the Pacific War. While still under construction, she began conversion into a light carrier after the losses during the Battle of Midway eviscerated the IJN's carrier force. But that was stopped in early 1945 so that the shipyard could build small submarines for the defense of Japan. As usual I intend to send it to FAC and so need checks for BritEng, unexplained jargon, etc. I also suspect that I should add a bit about the need for the conversion, though I'm uncertain about how much is necessary. So I trust reviewers will weight in with their opinions! Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

Comments Great work as always, but I think that the article's structure could be improved:

"was a heavy cruiser built for the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during World War II" - given that the ship was never completed, I'd suggest tweaking this accordingly
- I'm not sure what you mean. That the conversion was never finished is covered a couple of sentences later.
  - The ship wasn't "built" as it was never completed. Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - At least for me, "built" doesn't imply completion. But what other term should I use then? Constructed?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the article would benefit from a section which explains how these ships were ordered as cruisers and then converted to carriers - the 'Design and description' section is a bit unclear without it (this section would also work better if it was split into separate sections on the ship's intended design as a cruiser and as a carrier). Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have thought of this myself, so I've added a brief background section summarizing the decision making regarding the conversion, though I'm a bit concerned that it partially duplicates the construction section. See if that's satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that's the tidiest way of handling this, as it's repetitive. Restructuring the article into two top-level sections on her design and construction as first a cruiser then a carrier (e.g., with the first section covering the ship up to the decision to convert her, then the second section covering the design of the ship as a carrier and the fate of the ship) may work best. As the ship had a very non-standard history, I don't think that the standard structure for ship articles is going to work well. Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've reworked things into a single background section covering all the decision making, then a description in cruiser form and then all the rest. See how that works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nick, can you indicate whether you are happy with those changes/supporting or not, just for completeness? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry Nick, just saw that Sturm had already asked you about this via your talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Sturm, I have the following observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ext links all work, and there are no dab links (no action required)
the images lack alt text, which might help improve the experience for some readers: [1] (suggestion only)
the infobox says it was ordered in November 1941, but the body of the text just says "1941"
the infobox provides an installed power figure of 72,000 shp, but I couldn't find this in the body of the article
the infobox provides a figure of 1,015 for the crew, but I couldn't find this in the body of the article
however, her construction was suspended on 30 June: do we know why it was delayed?
- Sadly, no, the source doesn't say.
in the Design and description section, I think the type of ship (heavy cruiser) should be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph. I wonder if it should be mentioned that the ship was intended to be part of a class of X number of vessels here (or maybe in the Construction section)
- I put that info in the lede.
"armoured" --> "armored"
- Thanks for your review. See my changes suit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - G'day, Sturm, those changes look good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from L293D[edit]

Maybe clarify in a word or two what avgas is so readers don't have to click the link.
At the top of the island, Ibuki was - some readers don't know what an aircraft carrier island is
- Linked earlier.
and a Type 21 radar. In 1944, the Type 21 radar - Type 21 is repetitive, change to "and a Type 21 radar. In 1944, the radar "
- Good idea.

L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest moving the plan up a section and scaling it up

File:Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Ibuki_cropped.jpg: when/where was this first published?
- 2005 in Japan

File:Fig_of_Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Ibuki.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unknown, but it matches the shipyard drawing reproduced in Lacroix & Wells.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment~~ Just a couple of minor issues:

I'd probably nuke both of the external links per WP:ELNO #1
I'd tweak "Ibuki was scrapped in Sasebo Naval Arsenal Drydock No. 7, 22 November 1946 – 1 August 1947." to "scrapped in [SNAD7] between 22 Nov. 1946 and 1 Aug. 1947.", but that's up to you.
Another ENGVAR issue along with the "armour" one AR caught above - the Rapid Naval Armaments Supplement Programme should be piped with the American spelling. Parsecboy (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

The main gun turrets were protected by 25 millimeters of armor and the barbette armor ranged from 25 to 100 millimeters in thickness. How much is the first 25 mm?
- I'm not getting your meaning? Where was the thinnest armor?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: The article doesn't mentioned how much 25 mm in inches is. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ah, I converted 2.5 cm in the armament section. Does that suffice?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Oh, I see, well I didn't saw that coming, I guess never mind than. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The navy considered completing Ibuki as a high-speed replenishment oiler, but decided to convert her into a light aircraft carrier. on 25 August. Weird sentences, I think the dot after carrier shouldn't be there.
- Good catch, definitely a stray from earlier editing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything what I could find. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

The four sources used are of high quality and reliable, exactly what one would expect for such a ship. No formatting errors. AGF re: the spotchecks given Sturm's long history at ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 23 January 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.