Talk:HMS Implacable (R86)

Rigel incident

My great-uncle, who served on the Implacable at the time, says that the crew did bomb Norwegian installations, but that there was no indication that any ship was sunk. He says that perhaps censorship kept the information from getting out, but I see that the information is unsourced, so perhaps the Implacable didn't actually sink that ship. This might be worth investigation; I assume that the Rigel incident is documented somewhere. Paul Stansifer 03:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Implacable (R86)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 05:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

GA criteria

Well-written:

A few minor grammatical tweaks needed to be made, but nothing overwhelming. With them out of the way, the article complies with policies on prose, structure, and layout. Okay folks, say it with me: 1 for the money, 2 for the - the - okay, just let me read the script again first... (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses a multitude of reliable published sources and holds frequent citations to them. There does not appear to be any original research involved. Okay folks, say it with me: 1 for the money, 2 for the - the - okay, just let me read the script again first... (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to cover all important aspects of its topic for which reliable information was provided. There does not look to be any trivia incorporated. Okay folks, say it with me: 1 for the money, 2 for the - the - okay, just let me read the script again first... (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article show no bias towards or against its topic. Okay folks, say it with me: 1 for the money, 2 for the - the - okay, just let me read the script again first... (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The most recent edits in the revision history are traced back to August last year, and in all that time no edit warring or anything of that ilk has taken place, so I'm confident this article is stable. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

All three images currently used in the article are public domain, and serve relevant informative/illustrative purposes. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Ping, again--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay - I'll get back to this right now. Okay folks, say it with me: 1 for the money, 2 for the - the - okay, just let me read the script again first... (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I apologize for the delay, but hopefully the following will make up for it: After reading through the article and checking it against the criteria outlined above, I am satisfied that it meets the GA criteria. Congratulations! :) Okay folks, say it with me: 1 for the money, 2 for the - the - okay, just let me read the script again first... (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)