# Talk:SMS Tiger (1899)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Tiger (1899)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 12:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dumelow (talk · contribs) 07:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy to look at reviewing this one - Dumelow (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Changes all look good to me.  Happy to pass this one for GA - Dumelow (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)


### 1. Well-written
Criteria: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;  and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Design
"By the mid-1890s, the navy began planning to begin replacing the older vessels of the Wolf and Habicht classes by the end of the 1890s, but the loss of the gunboat Iltis necessitated an immediate replacement, which was added to the 1898 naval budget."
Consider "start" instead of "begin" and "by the end of the decade" instead of "by the end of the 1890s" to avoid repetition
Consider splitting the second part of this sentence off as it felt quite complicated
If you chose to split it consider mentioning the cause of the loss of the Itlis
Reworded that sentence, see how it reads now
"Her propulsion system consisted of a pair of horizontal triple-expansion steam engines each driving a single screw propeller, with steam supplied by four coal-fired Thornycroft boilers. "
I would use the name of the ship instead of "her" at the start of a new paragraph
Done

Service history
"The next day, she sailed for the Far East"
Link Far East?
Done
"Tiger was not seriously damaged in the accident, but she nevertheless sailed back north to Aden to take on coal before continuing her voyage"
Did she separate from Fürst Bismarck afterward the incident, you state they cruised together but she is not mentioned again.
Clarified
"On 2 January 1902, Tiger embarked the commander of the East Asia Squadron, Vizeadmiral (VAdm—Vice Admrial) Felix von Bendemann, for a trip to Siam to visit King Chulalongkorn in Bangkok from 13 to 19 January. After returning Bendemann..."
Do we know where Bendemann was picked up?  Was it from Hong Kong, the last mentioned location?
Hildebrand et. al. don't say, unfortunately - one would think so, since Bendemann had transferred temporarily to Hertha at that time
"On 13 August, the Russian ships restocked their coal supplies from three British steamers, but Fürst Bismarck and the protected cruiser Hansa cleared for action to prevent them from leaving the port. The two cruisers were joined by Tiger and her sister Luchs and the cruisers Hertha and Geier."
Feel like we could do with mentioning how the standoff concluded.
Good idea
"On 15 December, Tiger returned to Incheon to embark the German ambassador to Korea, since the German consulate was being dissolved following Japan's conquest of the country in the war with Russia."
If he was an ambassador wouldn't this be an embassy?  If it was a consulate wouldn't he be a consul?
Good catch - according to the source cited at List of ambassadors of Germany to South Korea, he was just a consul
"In June that year, KK Richard Ackermann arrived to take command of the ship."
The "KK" abbreviation hasn't been introduced to the reader
Fixed


### 2. Verifiable with no original research
Criteria: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Everything is supported by inline citations except the second part of this sentence in the lead, which is not supported in the main text: "They were ordered in three groups of two ships, each pair incorporating design improvements."
Good catch, fixed now
I am not familiar with the sources but they all appear to be reliable
All sources are offline except the New York Times article.  I have confirmed that that article supports the text cited and there is overly close paraphrasing of it.
Thanks, looks good.  For clarity in the last bullet point I meant there is no close paraphrasing! - Dumelow (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)


### 3. Broad in its coverage
Criteria: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Covers all main aspects of the ship's career


### 4. Neutral
Criteria: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

I found no issues with WP:NPOV


### 5. Stable
Criteria: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

There is no evidence of disputes or edit warring in the article history - Dumelow (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)


### 6. Illustrated
Criteria: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Article is well illustrated. The licenses used for each image look to be appropriate - Dumelow (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)