# Talk:SMS Drache (1865)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Drache (1865)/GA1. 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. 
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. 5.7% 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: 
Yep.
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.
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: 

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
That is it from me. Amazing article! A very very good work, buddy.  Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

I noticed that these two ships of the same class have quite different power outputs. 320 vs 250. Is there anything in sources that explains the difference? Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The last four ships had different engines and boilers - I'll go into more detail on that when I get to the class page. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)