I put this article up for a GA review, and the main problem that came up was the lack of books cited and a lack of information in certain sections. It was recommended that the article was put up for a PR to get additional editors involved who may have access to these sources. I wrote this article starting from this and basically kept the same structure, just adding information, prose and references. I'm now unsure about whether it would be better to combine the sections about individual ships into one large service history section, and also whether the whole article would be better if the German FA was used as a template. Any other reccomendations would be greatly appreciated. Jhbuk (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D
This article is in good shape, but needs to be expanded further
- "the ships are capable of operating continuously for over 20 years without refueling" - this seems something of an overstatement; if you tried running them "continuously" their machinery would break down eventually. Moreover, the ships require regular (and fairly lengthy) maintenance periods where they're unavailable for deployment.
- Given the massive number of PD US military photos of these ships it's somewhat under-illustrated
- The 'Design and construction' section should discuss the process by which the ships were designed
- " In total, the cost of construction for each ship was around $4.5 billion" - in what year's dollars is that figure? (eg, is it the cost for the first ship, the most recent ship, or an average adjusted for inflation)
- Why has the design flaw that causes the ships to list when heavily loaded not been rectified?
- "This CATOBAR arrangement allows for faster launching and recovery" - what is this being compared to? Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(continued)
- The coverage of the carriers' airwing is rather short and incomplete. For instance, I'm sure that F-14s, A-6s and Sea Kings have also operated from the carriers, and I imagine that Crusaders, Phantoms and possibly Sky Hawks have as well. This section should also discuss the relationship between the carriers and the USN's carrier air groups (which are partially independent of 'their' carrier, and move to a different ship when the carrier is undergoing a major overhaul) and how the composition of the airgroups have changed over time.
- The armaments section needs to note that their armament is limited to defensive point defence weapons only, and they mainly rely on their aircraft and the ships of the battle groups for protection (at present there's no mention of the battle groups, without which the carriers couldn't deploy)
- The discussion of the carriers' roles is missing the fact that the ships are believed to routinely deploy with nuclear weapons on board and their aircraft form part of the Single Integrated Operational Plan. This was a core role during the Cold War, and remains important today.
- On that topic, the carriers' Cold War roles and deployments are mentioned only briefly.
- RADAR shouldn't be all capitalised
- "To replace the Nimitz class after their decommissioning, the US Navy is building a new class of aircraft carriers named the Gerald R. Ford class, the first of which is expected to enter service in 2015, replacing the USS Enterprise" is a bit contradictory given that Enterprise isn't a Nimitz class vessel
- The article should cover the important symbolic and diplomatic role the Nimitz class performs.
- The article is perhaps overly dependant on internet sources as references. Sources such as Jane's Fighting Ships should be consulted. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the more minor problems and I can try to sort out a few of the others, but, as I have mentioned, I don't have access to the print copies of most books relevant to this. I'll see if I can find previews of the on google, but I don't think I'll be able to sort out everything. Jhbuk (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't added any information about the nuclear weapons, because I have read in places that The USN neither confirms nor denies their presence, but if suitable references can be found, then it can be added. Jhbuk (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blackeagle
"The discussion of the carriers' roles is missing the fact that the ships are believed to routinely deploy with nuclear weapons on board and their aircraft form part of the Single Integrated Operational Plan. This was a core role during the Cold War, and remains important today."
USN carriers haven't deployed with nuclear weapons aboard since 1991. Blackeagle (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gatoclass
Why does it refer to the ships as a "line" in the intro? Surely they are a class of ships? "Line" in maritime terminology usually refers to a shipping line. BTW I agree the article could use a few more images. Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]