Talk:HMS Cyclops (1871)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lede mentions why the vessel and her class were built, but the main body of the article does not. This needs to be rectified.
Done.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Do we know why the fitting out period was so lengthy?
Explained.

Can the term '1st Reserve' be clarified?
I'm not entirely sure myself how the RN structured its reserve system. I think that 1st Reserve were ships to be mobilized the quickest. I've just linked the term to mothballs, which amounts to much the same.

Between the lede and the Service section, I became somewhat confused. The lede gave the impression that the ships actually sailed out towards Constantinople to act, and the Service section makes this same impression. I think it should be clarified in both sections that, although commissioned, the ship did not actually leave Britain.
How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A few things missed in the lede and the body of the article, and I get the feeling that this might have been rushed slightly. However, no major problems, and once the additions are made this will be good to go. Skinny87 (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]