Talk:USS Wasp (CV-7)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Wasp (CV-7) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / North America / United States / World War II C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ships C‑class

	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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Shipwrecks Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Wreck?

Article could use a paragraph on information on the wreck if it's been located and dived. Tempshill 19:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

Okay writing for a third rate military rah-rah sight (lots or "roared down the runway," depicticions of being "undaunted", etc.) Poor for an encyclopedia. Please, just the facts, mam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.157.40 (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. FAR too many adverbs.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text here is a verbatim transcript from the entry in the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships [1]. It's a decent start, but I agree it needs work to become more encyclopedic in tone. SkipSmith (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish to label it a third rate military rah-rah sight. Just the facts and no hypocrisy please! take a little of your criticism and apply ample dose to self mam!! No verification the ship exceeded 15 kilotons standard load in accord with Washington Naval Treaty so have stricken comments concerning such. No such verification found in my research if you have it document it please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.88.57 (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info

Dont know if its avalaible..but there is no info about how many casualties and injured were in the final struck and fires of Wasp.. not for morbid info.. but its a part of the history . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.165.184 (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class

Wasp looks like a mini-Yorktown-class.--LandonJaeger (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the article, Wasp was specifically designed to use United States available Washington Naval Treaty tonnage to get more than USS Langley (CV-1) offered with similar tonnage. Langeley was simultaneously converted to a seaplane tender to remain within the total treaty tonnage limitation for aircraft carriers. In comparison to Yorktown, Wasp retained aircraft capacity by sacrificing speed and protection. When the Washington Naval Treaty was abandoned a few years later, Hornet was built to get what the navy had really wanted when Wasp represented all that was available. Wasp vulnerabilities may be best appreciated by comparing the combat histories of USS Ranger (CV-4), HMS Ark Royal (91), Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū, and the escort carriers with Yorktown class aircraft carriers, Illustrious class carriers, and Shōkaku class aircraft carriers.Thewellman (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy & paste

Some parts of the article, mainly on the Early days section are exactly the same as the ones you can find at hazegray. 210.165.133.93 (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]