Correct function header to comply with coding standards

ooops .. restoring component

#5 applies cleanly at 89f2654

+++ b/core/modules/image/image.module
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ define('IMAGE_STORAGE_MODULE', IMAGE_STORAGE_OVERRIDE | IMAGE_STORAGE_DEFAULT);
 /**
- * Implement of hook_help().
+ * Implements hook_help().
  */

This looks good!

However, can you please include parameter comments for $path and $arg, as well as the return comment?

Please reference http://drupal.org/node/1354/#functions under Parameters and also Return Value

Well, this kind of functions (hooks) have a slightly different documentation standard (found on a different section of the same page you linked), see: http://drupal.org/node/1354/#hookimpl

To cite the first pragraph: "If the implementation of a hook is rather standard and does not require more explanation than the hook reference provides, a shorthand documentation form may be used in place of the full function documentation block described above:"

Given that this seems to be a standard implementation of the hook and that the patch applies cleanly, RTBC, IMHO (revert if you disagree).

@rafamd You are correct. I stand corrected: no @param or @return for a hook implementation. :) Thanks @vegantriathlete!

Second on the rtbc, unless there is a pending larger documentation patch dealing with the entire image module.

Which there is :-( #1326608: Clean up API docs for image module

Thoughts?

ouch! :)

I'd say close this issue and enhance that other one (will facilitate commiter's job).

checked and this change isn't included in the proposed patch.

This is only my opinion and is that joint efforts are good, making everyones life easier. Just imagine if we had one issue with 15 comments for every little change in that other issue (strange example to make my point). Of course everyone's work on little issues like this one is *very* valuable, but if there's a bigger issue that involves this one, the effort will be more efficient there. Just my 2 cents.

Now, this issue is already RTBC, so .. it might be commited if left untouched. Again, for reference, this change wasn't included in the other issue's patch.

I'm ok with committing this little fix by itself, but yeah in general let's do these types of clean-ups in bigger chunks so the needs review/needs work/needs review/needs work/needs review/rtbc can happen fewer times.

Committed and pushed to 8.x and 7.x. Thanks!