# Talk:Japanese ironclad Kōtetsu

Look at http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-a/azuma.htm for an assortment of much better pictures. Stan 23:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. I took the opportunity to upload a higher-resolution version of the picture used here. Gdr 23:50, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
".. surprise night abordage by the rebel Kaiten, essentially thanks .. "

abordage points to an empty stub. What does the term mean?
Kaiten points to ??WWII?? suicide torpedoes. From the context this seems to be unlikely to be
related. I assume this section describes a night attack by some sort of "special forces" group
since on board Gattling guns are credited with sucessful defence. This is far from certain from the 
explanation. I have no basis to resolve the uncertainty, and have thus made no change to the published article.

Of course, you're right. Article on the "Japanese warship Kaiten" coming up soon. PHG 12:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should this be merged with the entry for the CSS Stonewall? They are, after all the same ship, and with, to be entirely honest, not a complicated enough (or long enough) history to make the combined entry unwieldy.
I could do it...
LordAmeth 05:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that they should be merged, as a lot of the information on these articles is pretty redundant. RMG 22:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've merged the two. There really wasn't much on the CSS Stonewall page anyway. LordAmeth 12:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
'Moved from my Talk Page.  It is more relevant here.'
Hello Msr iaidoka! I am very interested by any information you may have on the Cuban purchase and the Danish proceedings around the Kotetsu. Could you put the information in the article, with references if possible (we cannot just put up the flags with no information in the article itself). Looking forward to the information. Best regards PHG 10:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
PGH, I am working on that now. The Cuban information should be up now. I should have the Danish information posted by tomorrow. msr_iaidoka 0651, 15 April 2007 (EDT) UPDATE: Just checked my sources. Despite having flown Danish colors it appears that the vessel was never officially added to the lists. So the vessel was de facto a Danish vessel through its flying of Danish colors and christening with a Danish name, though not de jure. Would you say this warrants a Danish flag on the profile? msr_iaidoka 0702, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your great addition of information! PHG 14:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
At least one contemporary image shows the Azuma flying the "meatball"
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h02000/h02906.jpg (the bow flag shows a faded "meatball"
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h86000/h86930.jpg (retouched)
msr_iaidoka 1937, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Shoudent the gatling guns be listed under armanet.Nhog  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhog (talk • contribs) 18:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC) 

Reading the article, some bits seem unaddressed:

the infobox says it was scrapped in 1888, but the article cuts off after its success in the Japanese war a few decades before. What happened after that, and why was it scrapped?
the Union paid $16k to Cuba to get it, but then apparently sold it to Japan for $40k ($30k + $10k if I'm reading it right). Why did Japan pay more than twice as much as the Union? Did the Union get a big discount from the Cubans or were the Japanese that desperate for an iron-clad or just bad bargainers, or what?
A little more detail on the rationale of involved actors would make the account more logical. --Gwern  (contribs) 17:45 18 January 2015 (GMT)
The InfoBox States that the Main Gun is a 300 pdr Armstrong?! Yet the only source online (https://books.google.com/books?id=68uU_1PqcKYC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=300+pdr+armstrong&source=bl&ots=R92oTNKoVm&sig=ACfU3U2-KUx9pLpugAJZFBc87vyEtK2cWA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIraSfx4jgAhVCON8KHRM8CH0Q6AEwDHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=300%20pdr%20armstrong&f=false) I could find of such a giant was of 1-2 test models that were never sold, as they had the same issues of the mass produced (9-110pdr) Armstrongs (blowing out the vent piece) If any more info can be found, should an Article on the 300lb be created?69.204.81.15 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese ironclad Kōtetsu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I will take this on shortly Eddie891  Talk Work  13:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments
IMO the end of the lede could use a sentence summing up the final fate of the ship (sold for scrap in 1889)
Quite right and also needs a summary of her post-Boshin War career.
"Sphinx was 165 feet 9 inches" What's the reasoning behind saying 'sphinx' here?
It's a question of which name to use; I couldn't decide and just left it as it was originally. Which one do you think is the most logical?
I think the image caption would benefit as "Azuma at anchor in Yokosuka, Japan", given how many countries the ship was in.
"However, the Japanese removed one" I don't think 'however' meshes very well here, suggest nixing.
"Watts states only 95 t (93 long tons) of coal" is this 95 t for the full load, for 3,000 nm or for something else? Any idea the reason for the discrepancy
I think that the older sources didn't have much access to Japanese- or Danish-language publications and have preferred to use more recent ones for technical stuff.
I'd like to see a link to the American Civil War in the article body
If linked in the lede, I only bother with main body links for very long articles, of which this isn't one.
maybe link Ironclad in the body?
" easily than other potential secret contractors" can you expand on this? Were these potential secret contractors also French? Who else could they have been? Or do we just not know
Several ships were ordered from Britain, but AFAIK, the Confederates made no efforts to use any other builders in France, so I'm not exactly sure what Case & Spencer are referring to.
"named Cheops and Sphynx" Is this the same ship you call 'sphinx' above?
Typo
link Egyptian Navy?
link Shakedown cruise?
link Danish Naval Ministry?
Ferrol is a disambiguation link
It's unclear to me exactly how the confederates got control of the ship. Did they purchase it? Commandeer it?
Yeah, that could be considered important ;-)
"where permanent repairs took several months" I honestly feel this would read better in its own sentence
" declined to fight" how, exactly, does a ship 'decline' to fight?
By not moving within gun range, which was very short in those days. Usually much less than 1000 meters (.62 miles).
" The money was not paid until 2 November" not paid by who?
"the Stonewall required" Do you mean to have 'the' here
"The first Union ships arrived " maybe "Union ships (first) arrived" to avoid the implication that the ships were the first Union ships.
"Page decided to turn her over" IMO it's worth clarifying who 'her' refers to here?
If you link Confederate you should link Union
link Washington Navy Yard
Linked a caption above.
"discovered the Stonewall in the Washington Navy Yard" do you need 'the' here?
"Acting envoy" -> "Acting envoy to the United States" for clarity's sake?
"for the price of US$400,000" why "US$" here when you use "$" above?
" which included stopping the delivery of military material, including " can you eliminate the repetition of include here? No big deal if this is the best way to phrase it
"The ship had actually arrived" I'd suggest cutting 'actually' and/or replacing with 'initially', but maybe "the ship had arrived"
"In the meantime, " unclear what this is in the meantime of
"Imperial Japanese Navy" link?
"during the Naval Battle of Miyako Bay," Is 'naval' really needed here?
"as a third-class warship" meaning...?
Not sure, the source doesn't specify
"Sold for scrap, 12 December 1889" the date is neither mentioned nor sourced in the article
That's mostly it-- a very good article overall, just some minor (mainly subjective) comments as usual. Eddie891  Talk Work  19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your most thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. Sources I checked lined up, images look good to me, otherwise meets the GA Criteria. I'm fine with 'Sphinx' in the first section... Passing. Eddie891  Talk Work  13:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

AzumaColorized.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There were no any Arman Brothers (L’Arman Frères)
The ships were ordered by Lucien Arman (officially Jean-Lucien Arman)
He has only one sister Sophie .
L.Arman and Mazeline et Cie merged on 14.12.64 to Société Anonyme des Chantiers et Ateliers de l'Ocean (Stock Company). And that company delivered the ship. Ottmarshart (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Cite?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
That comes from early editions of Gröner "Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe"
Sources
1) Le Monde illustré 8 Oct 1864
2) Le Monde illustré 17 Sept 1864
3) Hubert Coureau "Courau. historie, portraits de famille" Paris 1977 Privat publication
4) Alain Clouet "Lucien Arman, un constructeur de navires à Bordeaux au XIXe siècle." 2019 Privat publication
Lucien father Jean Arman (+1846) married Adele Courau (1793-1818)
Courau was a Familly with long Shipbuilding traditions. (see 3 and 4 above)
More you could find there
Thema: Lucien Arman und die deutsche Flotte 
https://www.forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index.php/topic,23615.0.html
Ottmarshart (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The given engine power as 1200 PS (Pferdestärke = Horse Power) is metric horse power.
1200 PS was never measured, In early 1872 per Order of the Admirality, all German ships received their metric horse power values replacing used nominal horse power.So PRINZ ADALBERT was given 1200 PS.
So it is a fiction, as a ratio ihp/nhp could be from 2 to 5. The only known power of SPHINX is 300 nominal horse power. 
You heve to write English text metric HP or HP(M).
Ottmarshart (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)