Talk:German torpedo boat T1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:German torpedo boat T1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 00:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Initial review

I plan to review this article for GA class. Djmaschek (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Review 1

   @Sturmvogel 66: Please fix or argue your case for not fixing. Djmaschek (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

   • Design and description, paragraph 1, sentence 1: "...for ships that counted against the national tonnage limit." (I was confused by this clause, so I went to the Type 35 torpedo boat article, which described very well how the designers tried to shoehorn the T35s within the constraints of the London Treaty. Maybe something like: "...because such low-tonnage ships did not count against the national tonnage limit".)  Done
   • Design and description, paragraph 1: Standard displacement text: 859 metric tons (845 long tons), infobox: 859 long tons. (A mismatch also exists with deep load data.)  Done
   • Construction and career, paragraph 1: "Now assigned to the 1st Torpedo Boat Flotilla with her sister ships T2, T3, and the torpedo boat Kondor, they escorted a minelaying mission in the English Channel on 6–7 September." (It sounds awkward. Suggest: "T1 escorted a minelaying mission in the English Channel on 6–7 September as part of the 1st Torpedo Boat Flotilla with her sister ships T2, T3, and the torpedo boat Kondor.")  Done
   • Construction and career, paragraph 2: "the four oldest of the sisters" (Please add: "including T1". Logically, T1 should be the oldest, but make that clear.)  Done

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Your comments on my prose were great improvements over my own phrasings, appreciations!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Sturmvogel 66: GA class. Djmaschek (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)