The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:21, 25 February 2010 [1].

---

Imperial Japanese Navy[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

• Featured article candidates/Imperial Japanese Navy

• Featured article review/Imperial Japanese Navy/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Per Honor et Gloria, Military history WikiProject and associated task forces, WikiProject Ships, WikiProject Japan

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article was promoted in November 2005 and since then the criteria have became more stringent. This article is currently lacking in its referencing (1c) with several sections lacking any in-line citations and those which do still need more. There are also issues with the inconsistent format of the referencing (2c) and with lists of content which should either be removed and/or replaced with prose in the Bases and Facilities section (3b). -MBK₀₀₄ 11:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll do my best to try to update this cherished 2005 FA to the level of a 2010 FA (lots of work!), but, anybody, please don't hesitate to pitch in and improve the article directly. Thanks! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• done with the list of bases and facilities (3b), which were removed to a separate list article. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Half done with the process of adding enough references to the article (1c)/ (2c). Still ongoing. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Getting there Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are three links to disambig pages, two broken external links and none of the images has alt-text.bamse (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• done: deleted the dead external link (the others seem to be OK) Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 01:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt text just done. Could you kindly point to the "three links to disambig pages"? Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 01:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The three links to disambig pages are: Attrition, Hachette and Splinter. You can find them via "disambig links" in the toolbox on the top right of this page. Alt text still needs to be done as mentioned below.bamse (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much! done with the "disambig links". Alt text coming next. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Now done with alt text. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text to images just done. Thanks for the suggestion! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 01:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text is not done correctly. It is not intended to use the same wording as the captions, but instead to convey what the image looks like to the visually impaired reader. Please thoroughly re-read the MOS page and then ask questions of Eubulides. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Now done with alt text I think. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's better, but there are still some problems.

• Several images still lack alt text: File:Naval Ensign of Japan.svg, File:Imperial Seal of Japan.svg in the infobox, and Image:Stonewall-Kotetsu.jpg, Image:Chiyodagata.jpg, Image:FujisanWarship.jpg, Image:DaiIchiTeibo.jpg, Image:Dainiteibou.jpg, Image:Unyogunboat.jpg, Image:HouhouWarship.jpg, Image:Kasuga.jpg, Image:KenkoWarship.jpg, Image:NisshinWarship.jpg, Image:Mousyun.jpg, Image:Japanese Ironclad warship Ryujo.jpg, and Image:TsukubaWarship.jpg, in ((IJNFoundation)). I suggest removing the template's images, as they don't aid navigation; but if you keep them, they need alt text.
• Many details in the alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and need to be removed or reworded or moved to the caption, as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Troublesome phrases include "Battle of Dan-no-ura", "1634 Japanese Red seal", "Chinese" and "Western" in "flat Chinese and round Western sails", "A Western-style Japanese warship, the Shohei Maru (1854).", "Japanese warship Kanrin Maru, Japan's first screw-driven steam warship", "1857", "Japan's first domestically-built steam warship, the 1863 Chiyodagata", "Kotetsu, Japan's first modern ironclad,", "1869", 'Chinese characters for "Imperial Japanese Navy"' (please just transcribe the characters; see WP:ALT#Text), "the British-built Ryūjō, flagship of the Imperial Japanese Navy until 1881", "Naval gunnery trainees", "the Ryūjō, around their English instructor, Lieutenant Horse in early 1871.", "Japanese marines from the Unyo at Ganghwa Island, Korea, in the 1875 Ganghwa Island incident", "the Imperial Japanese Navy, in Pusan, on its way to Ganghwa Island, Korea, January 16th, 1876", "armoured corvette Kongō, 1877", "French-built Matsushima, flagship of the Imperial Japanese Navy at the Battle of the Yalu River (1894),", and many more instances later (at this point I stopped looking). Please bear in mind that the alt text should not repeat the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition), that it's supposed to describe appearance (see WP:ALT#Essence), and that it generally should not contain proper names (see WP:ALT#Proper names).
• Please avoid wording like "Old photograph of"; see WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.

Eubulides (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• done: removed images from ((IJNFoundation)).
• done: improved alt texts in images. Thanks for the tutorial! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 12:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's better, but a lot of some work is still needed. The first two images still lack File:Imperial Seal of Japan.svg still lacks alt text (I struck the rest). And many of the details still assume knowledge that a typical Wikipedia reader cannot verify from the images. Let's take the first alt text as an example: "Groups of Samurai on small Japanese ships, fighting each other." One cannot tell from the image that the ships are Japanese, or that the fighters are Samurai, so those two words need to be changed or removed. The second alt text says "Color Japanese woodblock print of a Japanese Red Seal ship." but an average reader cannot tell that the print is Japanese (it might be Chinese or Korean, for all they know), or that the ship is Japanese, or that it's a Red Seal ship. The third alt text says "Western-style Japanese warship." but the average reader can't tell it's a warship. Furthermore, these alt text entries don't describe the essence of the images well. For example, "Western-style Japanese warship" might be describing the Yamato for all the visually-impaired reader can see. I'm afraid that every alt text entry in the article has problems like this. Please remember that alt text has a completely different function from the caption, that any text in common between the caption and the alt text means that there's probably something wrong with the alt text (and perhaps with the caption instead), and that the alt text is supposed to briefly describe the important info conveyed by the visual appearance of the image (and not explain or interpret the image: that's for the caption). I suggest looking more carefully at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, particularly the lead and WP:ALT#Repetition. Eubulides (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully done :-) Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, thanks, but some problems remain.

• File:Imperial Seal of Japan.svg still lacks alt text.
• The alt text is a bit too brief. For example, "Radiating rising sun" could just as easily describe File:Jamaica sunrise.JPG; it doesn't tell the reader they're looking at a stylized flag with a solid red circle offset to the left on a white background, with sixteen red rays extending to the flag's edges. "Side view of a warship on a flat sea." doesn't describe the most distinctive things about that image, which is of a three-masted ship with a smokestack. And so forth. It's good to keep alt text short but not too short.
• Please remove the phrase 'for "Imperial Japanese Navy"' from 'Chinese characters 大日本帝國海軍, for "Imperial Japanese Navy"', as per WP:ALT#Verifiability and WP:ALT#Repetition.
• Please omit the phrase "photograph of" (several instances) as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid.

Eubulides (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hopefully done! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 10:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Unfortunately this article is no longer even close to FA standard. The widespread lack of citations is a show-stopper and needs to be addressed for it to reach B class standard, much less FA. My other comments are:
  • Some wording is awkward and some paragraphs are very short
  • The see also links should be integrated into the article's prose
  • The article is unduly focused on ships and their armament; there's not enough coverage of issues such as doctrine, logistics and training
  • The article is over-loaded with images
  • The article contains some dubious claims about the overall effectiveness of the IJN (eg, "In order to combat the numerically superior American navy, the IJN devoted large amounts of resources to creating a force superior in quality to any navy at the time. Consequently, at the beginning of World War II, Japan probably had the most sophisticated Navy in the world." - I note that this is referenced to a book about Japanese trade policy, not the IJN (the standard book on the IJN in this era, Kaigun, argues that the IJN had some strengths, but also some crippling weaknesses).
  • On a similar theme, Attributing the eventual US victory in the Pacific War to "technological upgrades to its air and naval forces and a vastly greater industrial output" is nonsense; the ships and aircraft which broke the back of the IJN's combat fleet at Midway and Guadalcanal were pre-war designs. While improved technology helped and greater output made victory all but inevitable, the IJN had already been crippled by the time the USN was upgraded and started to receive mass produced ships.
  • The history section also doesn't discuss the IJN's role in propelling Japan towards war with the United States (an argument made very convincingly in Kaigun)
  • The 'Bases and Facilities' section needs to be converted into prose. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• done with the list of bases and facilities, which were removed to a separate list article. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if that's an improvement: The topic of the IJN's bases needs to be covered in the article as they were vital to the force's operations. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

There are a lot of images, so my comments on each will be brief.

• File:DanNoUra.jpg and File:ShoheiMaru.JPG: no licensing concerns but no source
• File:Kanrinmaru.jpg, File:Chiyodagata.jpg: no source
• File:Stonewall-Kotetsu.jpg: incorrect license: the image was taken in the United States not Japan.
• File:Japanese Ironclad warship Ryujo.jpg: no source
• File:RyujoAndHorse.jpg: source is given as Togo Heihachiro, but there's no indication of how Mr Heihachiro gave his permission or how he can be contacted. The same applies to File:GanghwaLanding.jpg: the relationship between the image and the source is unclear.
• File:Kongo(1878).jpg, File:Matsushima(Bertin).jpg, File:Kotaka.jpg, File:Weihaiwei surrender.jpg: no source
• I may be wrong but the copyright notice at the bottom of https://gen1.open.ed.jp/cms/modules/itess_system/ and the terms and conditions at http://www.open.ed.jp/public/rule.html appear to indicate that the source for File:Naval battle.ogg is claiming copyright.
• File:BoxerJapaneseMarines.jpg, File:JBMikasa.jpg, File:IJN Satsuma.jpg: no source
• File:NisshinMalta.jpg: license may not be correct: the photograph was taken in Malta not in Japan
• File:SempillMission.jpg: no source
• File:TogoAndFrenchAirforceMission.jpg: if the author is unknown, how is it known that they are Japanese? The source appears to be French, so it is more likely to be a French photographer.
• File:IJN Izumo in Shanghai.jpg: this may not be PD in the United States if it was first published in 1991
• File:Kikka.jpg: no source; the public domain license was added by an anonymous IP after the image was tagged as unverified.
• File:I400 2.jpg: no source
• File:I-8Brest.jpg: could be a French image; the claim that the photograph can be used as "fair-use" doesn't stand up; there must be free use images showing similar scenes.

The template showing the First ships of the IJN isn't directly relevant and can be removed. The See also and External links sections should also be trimmed; only very relevant links should be listed. The IJN template should probably be moved down so that it's next to the JapanEmpireNavbox. DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=> Image improvements

Thanks! Didn't think bringing a 2005 FA to 2010 FA level would be so time-consuming :-) Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chiyodagata.jpg Source added

File:DanNoUra.jpg replaced with File:AntokuTennou Engi.7&8 Dannoura Kassen.jpg

File:ShoheiMaru.JPG Source added

File:Kanrinmaru.jpg Source added

File:Stonewall-Kotetsu.jpg PD-US license

File:Japanese Ironclad warship Ryujo.jpg Source added

File:RyujoAndHorse.jpg Source expanded

File:GanghwaLanding.jpg Source expanded

File:Kongo(1878).jpg Source added

File:Matsushima(Bertin).jpg Source added

File:Kotaka.jpg Source added

File:Weihaiwei surrender.jpg, not my image, unaware of source. Removing from article.

File:Naval battle.ogg, not mine, but Japanese images and videos before 1950 are public domain anyway, per ((PD-Japan-oldphoto)), aren't they?

File:BoxerJapaneseMarines.jpg Source added

File:JBMikasa.jpg not mine, replacing by File:Japanese battleship Mikasa.jpg

File:IJN Satsuma.jpg replacing by File:IJN Satsuma 2.jpg

File:NisshinMalta.jpg removing from article as I can't remember where it came from.

File:SempillMission.jpg Source added

File:TogoAndFrenchAirforceMission.jpg Official photograph taken in Japan at Gifu, most likely Japanese photographer.

File:IJN Izumo in Shanghai.jpg not mine, don't know about first date of publication, so removing it from article.

File:Kikka.jpg not mine, replacing with USAF File:KikkaNavyBase.JPG

File:I400 2.jpg source added.

File:I-8Brest.jpg removing from article.

Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern are prose, comprehensiveness (structure and doctrine), paragraph structure, citations, formatting (MOS), images YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 06:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - while PHG has done an admirable job in attempting to save this article, there are still many things outstanding including the majority of concerns put forth by Nick-D. Those which are specifically egregious include the overabundance of images in the article, the comprehensiveness concerns listed by Nick in his comments, prose and formatting (especially single sentence paragraphs), and the see also links which should be incorporated into the prose of the article where available (having this many see also links leads me to believe that the article does not cover all that it should). -MBK₀₀₄ 07:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist While the article has improved over the course of this project, some content remains uncited and I don't think that the article is either comprehensive or entirely neutral. I do hope that this can be brought back to FA status though, as it is a really important topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Per MBK and Nick. Some work was being done to restore the article but as of now nothing has been done for over two weeks. --Brad (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Many outstanding issues, and no work since the end of January. Photo crowding, lack of references, an empty Bases and Facilities section (not to mention the improper capitalization of section titles), lots of small choppy paragraphs, and citation formatting that is just...weird. Dana boomer (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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