Talk:HMS Maenad (1915)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Maenad (1915)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thehistorianisaac (talk · contribs) 09:42, 8 December 2022 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

New reviewer needed

The original review was reverted; a new reviewer is needed to start from scratch and do a complete review according to the GA criteria. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Simongraham and BlueMoonset: - I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 15:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to your insights. simongraham (talk)

• "However, the German's recorded no loss" - I'm certainly no master of punctuation and am not quite confident to just remove it myself, but I don't think the apostrophe is warranted
  • Good spot. I have amended this to remove the ambiguity.
• The Jutland artwork - if possible, I think it would be helpful to indicate in the caption if Maenad is the vessel partially seen in the foreground or the shadowy vessels in the background
  • It seems to be the one on the foreground. Amended.
• Campbell isn't used, remove or move to further reading
  • I have reread the relevant parts in Campbell and added some hopefully interesting facts.

I'll try to do some spotchecks later. Hog Farm _Talk 16:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. In the interim, I believe that I have made the edits as suggested. simongraham (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

No issues from a spot-check perspective and the additions from Campbell look fine. Passing. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review

@Pichemist: Hi, why did you close the above review? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The above review would have lead to no fruition, with the first review already being inconclusive and then the request for a new reviewer certainly did not help the situation. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 13:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion is a standard part of GA reviews. Please don't close reviews you have no part in, especially without prior discussion with the author and/or reviewer. Pinging Simongraham in case they're not aware of what's gone on. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I have reopened the GAN. In such situations I generally prefer just deleting the GA page instead of asking for a second reviewer, but for the moment second reviewer is the best option. CMD (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)