Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 21:10, 27 September 2015.

List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy

 * Nominator: Kharkiv07  ( T ) 

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)

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)

I'd invite comment from and  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)

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)

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)


 * Oppose but there might be work that can be done here. My main suggestions would be to trim the Class column greatly; we know it's the class column, you don't need to say, for example, "Essex-class". "Essex" is sufficient, with a link to the Essex class for the first one. Also, remove the sudden appearance of "supercarrier" in the class column. The refs column is also haphazard; why do some ships warrant specific references but others do not? Is there a general reference that we should accept in lieu of the specifics? --Golbez (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What's happening here is that there is an all-encompassing reference at the top of each column, but there are more specifics. Should specifics be eliminated? Kharkiv07  ( T ) 15:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments Nergaal (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a column with displacement and/or size would be appropriate. Something to give it a feeling of how large it is/was. Could be runway length, or humber of hosted airplanes, but that might not be a 1:1 comparison.
 * the intro should mention the fate of the carriers. i.e. how many got sunk? should probably mention the pivotal role carriers got in WW2
 * some cv-30 and cv-40 lack citations


 * Brief comment I remember seeing an earlier version of this list that indicated what happened with all of the skipped numbers in the CV series. I think it would be helpful to add this information back into the article, especially for notable aircraft carriers that were cancelled prior to commissioning (I'm thinking of primarily USS United States (CVA-58)).  I also noticed that the majority of the sources in the article are from the Navy; I'd recommend looking for and adding third-party reliable sources as well. –Grondemar 00:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.  Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the featured list candidates template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.  Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.