# Talk:SMS Comet (1860)

G'day Parsecboy. This is an odd spelling of Comet in German, which would usually be Komet as far as I can tell (with my crap German). Not a real issue, just thought I'd mention it in case there is a split with the spelling in refs. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It has to do with language reforms in the 20s - after World War I, Germans wanted things to look less "French" so lots of "C"s became "K"s - Cöln became Köln, Coblenz became Koblenz, etc. Parsecboy 10:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah. Shows how much I know... Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Comet (1860)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 22:31, 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. 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: 
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: 

It would be great if we could have an image or two, if they are available. If not, that would be fine too; however, could you try having an image or two?
After much digging through old periodicals and books, I found File:SMS Meteor illustration.png, which is probably the closest we'll get here, given the age and obscurity of these vessels.
Link Germany. Even per MOS, there are not as many links yet, so that can be linked too.
Link Prussia and Denmark.
All linked
An amazing article, buddy. That is it from me. Very very well written. I would have amended those issues myself, but since there is nothing to say in this article, I would leave them to be amended by you. Also, seeing that you have written the complete article from scratch, it is even more praiseworthy. It could become an FA.  Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
This one too. Amazing article. Great job!  Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)