Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 7, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on November 6, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi (wreck pictured) capsized on 29 July 1945 as a result of cumulative damage inflicted by American airstrikes on 24 and 28 July?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles Military history: Aviation / Maritime / Asian / Japanese / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Asian military history task force Japanese military history task force World War II task force Japan: Military history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 14:38, May 10, 2024 ( JST, Reiwa 6) ( Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: history watch purge Peer review: Kako River (Japan) A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles

The infobox lists Amagi's standard displacement as 22.400 tons, and her full load displacement as 22,800 tons, for a difference of only 400 tons. This seems to me to be an incredibly small difference; the Essex class (of the same time frame), for example, had a difference of over 9,000 tons. WeeWillieWiki ( talk) 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hiryū’s displacement was around 19,000 tonnes. Shōkaku was around 25,000 tonnes. XTremeAdmiral ( talk) 11:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The Yorktown class had around 19,000 tonnes too. They were more heavily aremoured that the Sōryū class, but in fact, Shōkaku had better protection from torpedoes and had good protection on her citadel. XTremeAdmiral ( talk) 11:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The Unryū class was very similar the the Hiryū and the Sōryū XTremeAdmiral ( talk) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The Tully source link was broken due to a capitalization error in the url. That was fixed and the link now works. Question: As this source was used to verify the claim made on the main page, and the capitalization error was in the link was broken when that was approved, how was the citation checked?

In any event the link now works, and the ^{citation needed} tags have been removed, as the source supports the sentences to which those tags were recently added. 24.177.99.126 ( talk) 19:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Did the "flight deck fall[ing] overboard" or did stuff on the flight deck fall overboard? Thomas R. Fasulo ( talk) 19:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply

My source says that the flight deck itself fell off when she rolled over.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply

No. [1], [2]

24.177.99.126 ( talk) 03:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply