Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi
 | 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | 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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi 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 rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Displacement
editThe 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)
Hiryū’s displacement was around 19,000 tonnes. Shōkaku was around 25,000 tonnes. XTremeAdmiral (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
The Unryū class was very similar the the Hiryū and the Sōryū XTremeAdmiral (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
References
editThe 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)
Falling overboard
editDid 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)
- My source says that the flight deck itself fell off when she rolled over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)