# Talk:SMS Cyclop (1860)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Cyclop (1860)/GA1. 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. 
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: 

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. 0% by Earwig.
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): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Yep.
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.
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: 

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).
This is it from me. Again, a very well written article!  Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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)