# Talk:Japanese cruiser Takachiho

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:

S. C. M. Paine (11 April 2005). The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-61745-1.
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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese cruiser Takachiho/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 04:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The figure of speed of 18.5 knots in the infobox varies from the figures in the body
The complement figure in the infobox is also contradicting the figures in the body
Infobox specifies the 1-inch Nordenfelts were quadruple; recommend citing this in the body as there appears to have also been single and double versions of the 1-inch Nordenfelt, so it's not an automatic equivalency
Not seeing where the armor thickness for the gun shields is cited.
"As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to construct such vessels, the ship was designed and built in the United Kingdom" - This reason for construction in the UK doesn't seem to be in the body
"No damage was inflicted on either side and returned to Kunsan, Korea." - missing a word?
"No damage was inflicted on either side and returned to Kunsan, Korea. for the rest of the month, the Flying Squadron escorted troops convoys to Kunsan." - I think maybe "for" should be capitalized, as it seem to be the start of a new sentence
"so Uryū decided to send his transports to unload their troops in the port as the Russians would unlikely to initiate hostilities in neutral territory amidst the Western ships - I believe instead of "would", you probably want "were" or "would be"
"and he nearby ships that he had the enemy in sight" - something seems to be off here
Brook 2000 does not seem to be used.
That's it from me; placing on hold. Hog Farm  Talk 05:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Made one minor tweak, please check for correctness.  Looks good to me; passing. Hog Farm  Talk 04:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)