This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
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.
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)[reply]
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 FarmTalk 16:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In the interim, I believe that I have made the edits as suggested. simongraham (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No issues from a spot-check perspective and the additions from Campbell look fine. Passing. Hog FarmTalk 03:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]