Talk:Attack on Yokosuka

WP:Mil Hist Commentary

Well-written article. On the technical side: I believe that the names of Otsuka Miki should be switched, per name guidelines; and second, the last sentence of the article is phrased somewhat awkwardly; I would advise changing it around. As for DYK hooks: I suggest:

• "...that the main target of the 1945 Attack on Yokosuka was the battleship Nagato, the flagship of the fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor?"

Good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that - that's a great hook. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Japanese casualties

In the description of the attack on the Nagato, it states:

one bomb killed "her commanding officer... as well as the executive officer and at least twelve other men.[9] Another 500 pound bomb ...[killed] about 22 sailors... By the time the attack concluded at 4:10 pm, 35 of the battleship's 967 officers and men had been killed."

That's 36 men killed due to the 2 bombs (CO + XO + 12 + 22). Is the "35" a mistake, or is this in addition to the 36 already mentioned? Boneyard90 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

From re-reading the source, it seems that total fatalities on the bridge were 12 sailors, including the CO and Executive Officer - this part of the website is poorly worded. There were another 22 fatalities in the officer's lounge, and the remaining fatality isn't explained. I've fixed the article's wording - thanks for spotting this. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. The other thing I was thinking: should all the reported Japanese casualties be totaled up in the infobox? In a format like: >75 killed or 75+ sailors or something like that. (Note: the number 75 is hypothetical, and doesn't reflect anything in the article) Boneyard90 (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a source for the total Japanese casualties, unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be incorrect to add up the numbers in the article? Boneyard90 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The only Japanese casualties I could find references to were those on board Nagato. As these are likely to have been a relatively small minority, it doesn't make sense to include them in the infobox in my view. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Agreed, then. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Attack on Yokosuka/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll review this shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Are these reliable sources?

• http://www.combinedfleet.com/picposts/Nagatostory.html
• http://www.combinedfleet.com/nagatrom.htm

The entire combinedfleet.com site is held to be a reliable source as the people behind it have authored several commercially published and very well regarded books on the Japanese Navy of World War II and it's been referenced in other commercially published books. I used it extensively to reference the Operation Kita article, which passed a FA nomination last year, and its been used in lots of other FAs (for instance, Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi, Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō, Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga, Japanese battleship Haruna and Japanese battleship Yamato). In particular, the author of 'NAGATO's Last Year' wrote these two well regarded books on the Japanese Navy: [http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Sword-Untold-Battle-Midway/dp/1574889249/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328693166&sr=1-1], [http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Surigao-Strait-Twentieth-Century-Battles/dp/0253352428/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328693166&sr=1-2]. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• Just two more questions: why are these mentioned mention in "Works consulted" but not referenced in the work?

• Hackett, Bob; Kingsepp, Sander and Ahlberg, Lars (2009), "IJN Nagato: Tabular Record of Movement". Combinedfleet.com. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
• Tully, A.P. (2003). "Nagato's Last Year: July 1945 – July 1946". Mysteries/Untold Sagas of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Combinedfleet.com. Retrieved 22 April 2011

Should they be under "Further reading" or something? Am I missing something? Otherwise, the article is great, very clear reading. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed 'IJN Nagato: Tabular Record of Movement', but 'Nagato's Last Year: July 1945' is extensively used as a reference. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• One more question: "The Allied pilots were unhappy with the results of the attack on Yokosuka." - why is this? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • They'd hoped to sink Nagato. I've clarified this. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Fine article. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)