Talk:HMS Tourmaline (1875)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Hog Farm _Talk 03:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 13:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will review soon. Hog Farm _Talk 13:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Thank you. I look forward to your comments. simongraham (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" The ship had a complement of 232 officers and ratings" - Roberts actually says 230?
- Fixed.
Roberts p. 51 indicates that ships of the class were all armed with between 7 and 9 MGs (possibly standing for machine guns?, the abbreviations secion of Conway does not seem to be included in the internet archive copy). Is this worth mentioning if the abbreviation can be parsed out?
- I think that is a reasonable assumption. I could not find any specific information on how, when or if these were mounted on Tourmaline so omitted them. I feel that this is better added to the page on the class itself.
" "British War Ship in Port". The New York Times. Vol. 38, no. 11846. p. 3." - citation needs the date of the paper
- Added.
Probably best to switch the infobox image over to PD-UK-unknown on Commons, given that the UK was not in the EU when the image was published or today
- You are right. I have changed the image to one with appropriate tags.
File:Launch of HMS Tourmaline at Middlesborough-on-Tees - ILN 1875.png should also have a PD tag for the UK and also the author per the original source is a Mr. Neville. If the file were truly by Herny Spernon Tozer, then the file wouldn't be PD somehow, because Tozer didn't die until 1955 and UK laws gives copyright protection for works until 70 years after the creator's death. Since "Mr. Neville" can't be readily identified, then the same PD-UK-unknown from above is probably good
- That seems reasonable. Amended.

Looks fine otherwise, spot-checked several of the refs and saw no other issues Hog Farm _Talk 01:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you for your thorough review. Please see my comments above. simongraham (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2023 (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.