Jump to content

Talk:SMS Cyclop (1860)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSMS Cyclop (1860) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starSMS Cyclop (1860) is part of the Camäleon-class gunboats series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 28, 2017Good article nomineeListed
October 24, 2018Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
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)[reply]



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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

Thanks for another review! Parsecboy (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Surely, you write superb articles! Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]