Jump to content

Talk:SMS Tiger (1887)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Well written. Would be picking up the review, and amending straight forward changed; you know the drill. 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. 1% by Earwig; extremely low.
  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:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Not at all.
  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:

As always, I cannot really find out many errors in such a brilliantly written article, so just a few minor nit-picks!

  • We could have ALT texts for the images (not necessary though).
    • Added
  • "... convened on 16 September" of the same year?
    • Yeah, the same year
  • "Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) ..." we could keep it consistent with "... Navy Commander (Marinekommandant)", by keeping "Rear Admiral outside and "Konteradmiral" inside the brackets.
    • Fixed, though I went the other way, standardizing on the official term and providing the translation in the parentheses
  • Similarly for "Marinesektion (Naval Section of the War Ministry) ..." You could also change "Navy Commander (Marinekommandant)" to match the other such occurrences for consistency.
    • Same as above
  • "... every tenth of" I think a "one" could be tossed in to make "... every one-tenth of".
    • Done

Yet another great one! This is all I got. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another review! Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very very well written article, yet again. A definite pass! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]