Talk:HMS Cyclops (1871)

HMS Cyclops (1871) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 11, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 23, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the British breastwork monitor Cyclops and other ships of her type were described by Admiral G. A. Ballard as being like "full-armoured knights riding on donkeys, easy to avoid but bad to close with"?

Military history: Maritime / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Refit - clarification needed

Under "Refit", the phrase "this was not acted upon they were refitted during the 1880s" needs either the word "when" or the word "until" added, after the word "upon". Depending on which was the case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Cyclops (1871)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lede mentions why the vessel and her class were built, but the main body of the article does not. This needs to be rectified.
Done.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Do we know why the fitting out period was so lengthy?
Explained.

Can the term '1st Reserve' be clarified?
I'm not entirely sure myself how the RN structured its reserve system. I think that 1st Reserve were ships to be mobilized the quickest. I've just linked the term to mothballs, which amounts to much the same.

Between the lede and the Service section, I became somewhat confused. The lede gave the impression that the ships actually sailed out towards Constantinople to act, and the Service section makes this same impression. I think it should be clarified in both sections that, although commissioned, the ship did not actually leave Britain.
How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A few things missed in the lede and the body of the article, and I get the feeling that this might have been rushed slightly. However, no major problems, and once the additions are made this will be good to go. Skinny87 (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]