Talk:HMS Searcher (1918)/GA1

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

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

Well-written
(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:
 * one of 33 Admiralty S-class destroyers (needs hyphen for adjectival use. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * "Differences with from the R class. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed.
 * comma after "between the funnels" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Added.
 * comma after "on 25 November". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Added.
 * "helping to help" reword? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed.
 * perhaps state in text what class of ship Caledon was? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Added.
 * "The destroyer was recommissioned" when was it decommissioned?
 * The sourced do not say. However, I have added the reason why recommissioning was required.
 * Happy with those changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * all good here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

(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):
 * all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research:
 * all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism:
 * all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Stable

 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Illustrated
(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)
 * 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)
 * Added. simongraham (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

(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)

Overall

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

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