Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō/archive1: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Closed/promoted
Line 27: Line 27:
**Added, thanks for checking this over.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
**Added, thanks for checking this over.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


'''Closing comment''' -- taking into account three reviews (different editors to the above) at MilHist ACR, I think this has had a thorough going-over, including that of a non-MilHister; [[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturm]], I going to promote but could you just check for me the low figure in the infobox for aircraft carried, because based on the info in ''Flight deck arrangements'' I made it out to be 42, not 48 (temporary blindness perhaps). Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 09:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
'''Closing comment''' -- taking into account three reviews (different editors to the above) at MilHist ACR, I think this has had a thorough going-over, including that of a non-MilHister; [[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturm]], I'm going to promote but could you just check for me the low figure in the infobox for aircraft carried, because based on the info in ''Flight deck arrangements'' I made it out to be 42, not 48 (temporary blindness perhaps). Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 09:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


{{FACClosed|promoted}} [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 09:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
{{FACClosed|promoted}} [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 09:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:22, 22 February 2017

Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō was an ocean liner that was converted into an aircraft carrier as part of a large program to surreptitiously reinforce their carrier fleet leading up to the Pacific War. Completed in 1942, she and her sister ship were thrust into major roles in the war after the Japanese lost four carriers at the Battle of Midway. Jun'yō thus had a very active war and her aircraft helped to sink the US carrier Hornet in late 1942. She survived being torpedoed twice by US submarines during the war, although Japanese shortages of steel and manpower caused her damage to remain unrepaired during the last year of the war. She survived the war, but was broken up a year later as she wasn't worth repairing to repatriate Japanese troops home. The article passed a Mil-Hist A-class review a year ago and I've tweaked it since to bring up to snuff. I'd like reviewers to look for any unexplained jargon terms as well as any unfelicitous prose that may be lingering.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Good to see you back at FAC. I've looked at the changes made since I did some copyediting for A-class, and I just now finished it up. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last year was kinda hectic, but I'm hoping that I can continue to participate at FAC again as much as I used to. Your edits look good; tightening up the text is almost always a good thing. Thanks for looking at this so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support all looks good. Just a couple of nitpicks:

  • "sponsons along the sides of the hull." you conclude consecutive sentences with this phrase. Can you vary it?
  • Good idea.
  • It's hard to say what the motive was, given the rivalry between the IJA and the IJN, but it's clear that the Army was nowhere near the airfield when they sent the message, and had to retract the message at 07:00 the next morning. Thanks for taking the time to review this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I think we still need a source review, unless I've missed it. This can be requested at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- taking into account three reviews (different editors to the above) at MilHist ACR, I think this has had a thorough going-over, including that of a non-MilHister; Sturm, I'm going to promote but could you just check for me the low figure in the infobox for aircraft carried, because based on the info in Flight deck arrangements I made it out to be 42, not 48 (temporary blindness perhaps). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]