Talk:SMS Drache (1865)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 23:01, 2 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.

That is it from me. Amazing article! A very very good work, buddy. Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:06, 2 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. 5.7% by Earwig; extremely low.
 * 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:
 * Not at all. The complete article was 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:
 * Here too. It would be great if you could find an image or two. Not necessary though, if you do not find that is fine too.
 * I added the one I found of Meteor to this article as well
 * Link Norway.
 * Done
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Here too. It would be great if you could find an image or two. Not necessary though, if you do not find that is fine too.
 * I added the one I found of Meteor to this article as well
 * Link Norway.
 * Done
 * I added the one I found of Meteor to this article as well
 * Link Norway.
 * Done
 * Thanks for another review! Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the best articles I have review (both of them). You can try it for an FA (an obvious support from me). Very very well done! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)