Talk:Implacable-class aircraft carrier/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and will post my full review in the next day or so. Dana boomer (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lead, "to transport troops about before being placed" Does the "about" add anything to this sentence?
 * Looks I was trying to combine move troops about and transport troops. But I agree that the latter phrasing is better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Background and description, "766 feet 6 inches (233.6 m) in long overall" Is there a duplicated unit name here (inches/in)?
 * Background and description, "The specifics of the Implacable-class ships' radar suite is not fully known." - why not? Is this information still classified?
 * Rephrased as none of my sources actually provide the info.
 * Background and description, "There is doubt, however, that the ships were actually completed with the increased thickness of armour." Doubt by who?
 * Friedman for one. I gather that the surviving documentation isn't clear if the armour was actually increased or not. Do you want me to add names of doubters?
 * Yes, that would probably be a good idea. Does Friedman have a good quote on this that could be added in? Dana boomer (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not the greatest of quotes, but added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Background and description: Some of the other ship articles have separate subsections for armor, armament, etc. Why aren't those used here, since this is a rather long section?
 * I can certainly break it into sections if you'd prefer. I held off this time because each section would be only a paragraph each.
 * Planned modernisation, "would receive current radars instead of the latest models." I don't understand what this is trying to say. What is the difference between current and latest?
 * Current as was available at that time; latest would be systems not yet fielded. I think this is a problem like using modern/contemporary without a frame of reference. The reader could construe contemporary to mean in his time while it could really mean contemporary with the event being discussed. Suggestions for clarification gratefully accepted if you think of anything.
 * Maybe something like "would receive current radars, instead of the most recently developed models, which had not yet been deployed."? Dana boomer (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Construction and service, "Operation Athletic off the Norwegian coast, sinking six ships and damaging a German submarine." What type of ships? Merchant, war, private?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few queries on prose above, but nothing major. Placing the article on hold until they are addressed, and then it should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few queries on prose above, but nothing major. Placing the article on hold until they are addressed, and then it should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A few queries on prose above, but nothing major. Placing the article on hold until they are addressed, and then it should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Responded to all of your comments. Thanks for taking the time to look this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, everything looks good now, so I am passing the article to GA status. Nice work, as always. Dana boomer (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)