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. |
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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)
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)
Concur. FAR too many adverbs.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)
Class
Wasp looks like a mini-Yorktown-class.--LandonJaeger (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- C-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- C-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- Unassessed Shipwreck articles
- Unknown-importance Shipwreck articles