# Talk:SMS Tiger (1887)

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)

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. 
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. 1% by Earwig; extremely low.
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: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Not at all.
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: 

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)