The list was archived by Giants2008 21:10, 27 September 2015 [1].
List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
A topic that I'm interested in and have quite a bit of knowledge in, so I thought I'd give it a go. Suggestions for improvement are always welcomed, and I'll try to fix anything that comes up in a timely fashion. Kharkiv07 ( T) 20:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - It seems some of the referencing needs polishing, for example #14 is just a bare link. Mattximus ( talk) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I'd invite comment from Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy on this list. My main issue is that it is a completely different format to the other lists of ships I've seen, such as List of battlecruisers of the United States and List of heavy cruisers of Germany for example. Harrias talk 10:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose Frequent mention of singleton ships as "classes", which just grates on me. But more importantly, there's no context, just a minimal lede that basically just puts things in sequence. There's no information on the ships themselves and thus no way for a reader to follow the growth and evolution of the carriers. And there's no information on why certain design decisions were made, like in reaction to war experience, or for the nuclear-bomber role, etc. There's certainly no requirement that ship lists use the same format that Parsecboy and I do, but it does convey a lot of information in a reasonably compact layout. This is just an enumeration of American carriers, with pretty pictures, nothing more. This can certainly be rewritten in a more informative manner, but that will require a lot of work that should happen elsewhere before a renomination.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 11:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - my thoughts are basically the same as Sturmvogel's above - there's no need to follow the same pattern that we have established, but there is certainly a lot of information missing that I'd think is necessary. One thing I'd point out is the List of battlecruisers, which is fairly similar to this list, in that I dispensed with blurbs when I wrote it, though it still includes much more information than this list currently does. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments
Nergaal ( talk) 15:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by Giants2008 21:10, 27 September 2015 [1].
List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
A topic that I'm interested in and have quite a bit of knowledge in, so I thought I'd give it a go. Suggestions for improvement are always welcomed, and I'll try to fix anything that comes up in a timely fashion. Kharkiv07 ( T) 20:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - It seems some of the referencing needs polishing, for example #14 is just a bare link. Mattximus ( talk) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I'd invite comment from Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy on this list. My main issue is that it is a completely different format to the other lists of ships I've seen, such as List of battlecruisers of the United States and List of heavy cruisers of Germany for example. Harrias talk 10:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose Frequent mention of singleton ships as "classes", which just grates on me. But more importantly, there's no context, just a minimal lede that basically just puts things in sequence. There's no information on the ships themselves and thus no way for a reader to follow the growth and evolution of the carriers. And there's no information on why certain design decisions were made, like in reaction to war experience, or for the nuclear-bomber role, etc. There's certainly no requirement that ship lists use the same format that Parsecboy and I do, but it does convey a lot of information in a reasonably compact layout. This is just an enumeration of American carriers, with pretty pictures, nothing more. This can certainly be rewritten in a more informative manner, but that will require a lot of work that should happen elsewhere before a renomination.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 11:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - my thoughts are basically the same as Sturmvogel's above - there's no need to follow the same pattern that we have established, but there is certainly a lot of information missing that I'd think is necessary. One thing I'd point out is the List of battlecruisers, which is fairly similar to this list, in that I dispensed with blurbs when I wrote it, though it still includes much more information than this list currently does. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments
Nergaal ( talk) 15:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply