Talk:HMS Searcher (1918)/GA1

Latest comment: 9 months ago by Peacemaker67 in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 08:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Well-written edit

(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 edit

(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:

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism:

Broad in its coverage edit

(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 edit

Stable edit

Illustrated edit

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

The licence for the image isn't valid, as the author is unknown. It also needs a US PD tag. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Replaced image with one with valid PD tags.
Sort of. There is nothing I can find on the IWM site regarding this image or the other images in the DJ Weller collection that explicitly states Weller was an RN member at the time the photograph was taken. The licence really needs to explicitly state that: "given the nature of the photograph, it seems highly likely it was taken by a member of the RN". Not sure how that would fare at Milhist ACR or FAC, but I'd accept it here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Added. simongraham (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

presuming a valid image/licence is found, then the caption is fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Overall edit

  1. Well-written  
  2. Verifiable with no original research  
  3. Broad in its coverage  
  4. Neutral  
  5. Stable  
  6. Illustrated  

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for your thorough review. Please take a look at my changes and tell me if I missed anything. simongraham (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

All good, passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply