Talk:HMS Cyclops (1871)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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)