Talk:SMS Tiger (1887)/GA1

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

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

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.

As always, I cannot really find out many errors in such a brilliantly written article, so just a few minor nit-picks! Yet another great one! This is all I got. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:18, 15 August 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. 1% 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:
 * 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.
 * 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:
 * 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.
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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
 * Thanks for another review! Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a very very well written article, yet again. A definite pass! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)