This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Japanese cruiser Takachiho article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Japanese cruiser Takachiho has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 28, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A reader contacted Wikimedia via OTRS to report:
Each of the following pages in Wikipedia has the same error:
Japanese cruiser Matsushima Japanese cruiser Itsukushima Japanese cruiser Hashidate Japanese cruiser Naniwa Japanese cruiser Takachiho Japanese cruiser Yoshino
Each of these warships participated in the Battle of the Yalu fought on 9/17/1894. Each of the above Wikipedia articles gives specific details about the number of shells fired, and/or hits received. In each and every case the source of reference for those details is the same. The source is quoted as a book entitled "The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Powers and Primacy" by S.C.M. Paine. Each reference lists the pages 133-134 as the source.
I have a copy of the book and the pages 133-134 refer to a prior naval engagement that took place on 7/25/1894 and only the Naniwa was present. The book does describe the Battle of the Yalu but only in general terms; not even the names of the ships involved are mentioned.
The writer may have cited the wrong source, but the source cited in each of the above articles is most assuredly incorrect.
I believe the book used to cite the claims is:
I did not find the information in the book. I hope some editor can either verify that the information is in the source, identify a different source to support the claims, or remove the claims.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 02:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 04:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
That's it from me; placing on hold. Hog Farm Talk 05:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Japanese cruiser Takachiho article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Japanese cruiser Takachiho has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 28, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A reader contacted Wikimedia via OTRS to report:
Each of the following pages in Wikipedia has the same error:
Japanese cruiser Matsushima Japanese cruiser Itsukushima Japanese cruiser Hashidate Japanese cruiser Naniwa Japanese cruiser Takachiho Japanese cruiser Yoshino
Each of these warships participated in the Battle of the Yalu fought on 9/17/1894. Each of the above Wikipedia articles gives specific details about the number of shells fired, and/or hits received. In each and every case the source of reference for those details is the same. The source is quoted as a book entitled "The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Powers and Primacy" by S.C.M. Paine. Each reference lists the pages 133-134 as the source.
I have a copy of the book and the pages 133-134 refer to a prior naval engagement that took place on 7/25/1894 and only the Naniwa was present. The book does describe the Battle of the Yalu but only in general terms; not even the names of the ships involved are mentioned.
The writer may have cited the wrong source, but the source cited in each of the above articles is most assuredly incorrect.
I believe the book used to cite the claims is:
I did not find the information in the book. I hope some editor can either verify that the information is in the source, identify a different source to support the claims, or remove the claims.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 02:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 04:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
That's it from me; placing on hold. Hog Farm Talk 05:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)