Talk:SMS Tiger (1887)

Photo

here. Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Other options here and here, potentially closely cropped. Also here for postwar appearance. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Tiger (1887)/GA1. 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.

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. 1% by Earwig; extremely low.

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:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Not at all.

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:

As always, I cannot really find out many errors in such a brilliantly written article, so just a few minor nit-picks!

• 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

Yet another great one! This is all I got. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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)