Talk:British warship HMS Invincible put up for auction online

Review of revision 1138111 [Failed]

Revision 1138111 of this article has been reviewed by Cartman02au (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 10:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: spelling issues, grammar Comments by reviewer: Please correct spelling mistakes. It may also be wise to reword the first paragraph Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1138111 of this article has been reviewed by Cartman02au (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 10:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: spelling issues, grammar Comments by reviewer: Please correct spelling mistakes. It may also be wise to reword the first paragraph Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I've corrected the issues you've specified, but I'm not sure what exactly it is you don't like about the wording of the first paragraph. Thanks, wackywace 11:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1139280 [Passed]

Revision 1139280 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I note that this is a few hours past the regular review time, but it's close enough that I figured I'd review it anyway. There are sources around that are from Dec 2nd, but they all give the same information anyway, so I saw no point in including them just to artificially bump the article's date. Ah well. If anyone disagrees with this publication, feel free to give me a good shouting at. Gopher65talk 13:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1139280 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I note that this is a few hours past the regular review time, but it's close enough that I figured I'd review it anyway. There are sources around that are from Dec 2nd, but they all give the same information anyway, so I saw no point in including them just to artificially bump the article's date. Ah well. If anyone disagrees with this publication, feel free to give me a good shouting at. Gopher65talk 13:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.