Talk:SMS Cyclop (1860)/GA1

GA Review
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.

This is it from me. Again, a very well written article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 1) 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&mdash;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.
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Yep.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) 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).
 * 1) 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).
 * "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).
 * 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)