Talk:SMS Cyclop (1860)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Cyclop (1860)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 16:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Well written. Would be picking up the review, and amending straight forward changed. Feel free to revert/change any mistakes that I make while I edit the article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the 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:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Absolutely not. 0% by Earwig.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Yep.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Entirely written by Parsecboy.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Don't you think "laid up" should be linked to reserve fleet?
  • I like the wiktionary link more because all that's really needed there is a dictionary definition of what that means, and a reader has to dig a bit more to find that on the reserve fleet page.
• Link Prussia.
  • Done
• "assigned to the artillery" artillery could be linked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that's all that useful a link in that context. If we had an article about artillery training, that would be a good link, but as far as I know we don't (the closest are country-specific articles like Royal School of Artillery).

This is it from me. Again, a very well written article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for another review! Parsecboy (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. Surely, you write superb articles! Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)