Talk:German torpedo boat T34

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:German torpedo boat T34/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 05:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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:
· · ·

Notes

1. Assuming good faith for offline sources.
2.  Done There are a lot of links in this article, including (as far as I can tell) each unit used (metric tons, long tons, kW, knots, mph, km/h) - are they all needed?
3.  Done `AA guns` is linked to a redirect to Anti-aircraft warfare, which doesn't provide much help in the sentence Anti-aircraft defense was provided by four 3.7 cm (1.5 in) SK C/30 AA guns... - it is clear that the guns are "anti-aircraft defense [guns]"
4. The biggest issue that I see is the lack of focus. The majority of the content is the `Design and description` section, which focuses on the design and description of Type 39s in general, not on this specific boat. While I understand that all of the boats were designed similarly, that content is, in my view, merely background information here. Without that section, the article would be only four sentences, and would only have one reference; the actual discussion of T34 itself is very minimal, and not well referenced. This article should be expanded; can anything about the aftermath of its destruction, or about what it did between when it was commissioned and when it sank, be added?
5. The image is of German torpedo boat T35, and while I understand that the ships were similar, I'm not sure the image is appropriate. Are there any images of T34, or of all of the Type 39s together?

   Explanation accepted; best available image

I have placed this review on hold for now. The links and the specific image are minor issues that should be dealt with. The fact that only one reference is specifically for the content about this ship, and the fact that that content is so short, is the primary issue that needs to be remedied. Please ping me with any questions. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• 2. I believe so, yes. Forex, neither Americans nor any one else really know the difference between long tons and ordinary (short) tons. Mph and km shouldn't have been linked and have been fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• 3. Link to anti-aircraft defense removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• 4. The ships were built identically, so a boilerplate description is perfectly logical, so long as individual exceptions, if any, are noted. Sadly, there are no specific details available for this ship, not even maximum speed attained during trials, probably because the shipyard was captured by the Soviets during the war and the records were destroyed. The description is a an essential part of the article, but changing "Type 39 or the ships" to T34 specifically would be no more than a cosmetic change at best. Her wreck has not been located, to the best of my knowledge. I've added the name of her non-notable commander and a little bit about working up, which her gunnery training was a part of. She would not have been deemed combat ready until her workup was complete. That one cite has three different sources in it, so you can hardly complain that it's not well referenced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66: I didn't realize it was 3 different sources there; thats okay DannyS712 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• 5. I haven't been able to find any copyright-free images of her or of the entire class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• The actual criteria is that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" and I believe that it has been as the ship and her activities covered to the limits of the available information in two different languages (Gröner is a translation).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66: I have to disagree with you here. Looking deeping into criteria 3, I turned to the reviewing guideline, Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, which clarifies it as The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions. The article may, and sometimes should, go into detail, but it is not required to be comprehensive. - the focus on the description of Type 39 ships in general is indeed a digression that could be covered with a {{see also}} link and a focus on the individual exceptions. Again, I don't see broad coverage; there just isn't enough content here about T34 DannyS712 (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  I don't agree with you as everything in the infobox needs to be cited. Cites in the infobox itself are discouraged, which means that the description must be written out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66: In that case, I would suggest that we follow Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Close and re-nominate - would you be okay with that? DannyS712 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  First, I'd like you to pick any 3 or 4 ship GAs or FAs that I didn't write and see if they have description sections of about the same level of detail. I think you'll find that they are not regarded as essential parts of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66: I'm not sure what you mean; my issue is that, relative to the coverage of the ship itself, coverage of the common design is too much. See, for example, SM U-3 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-4 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-5 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-6 (Austria-Hungary) (as well as SM U-12 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-16 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-17 (Austria-Hungary)) --DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, but those ships saw combat. This one didn't. Subtract all the combat service and all the peacetime service stuff from those articles and you'll get what T34 has, a multi-paragraph description and a couple of lines covering the construction and commissioning info. T34 was sunk before she had a chance to do anything, so there's nothing disproportionate about the coverage in the article given her history. If nothing else, the description certainly isn't a digression as you were saying earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66: I'm sorry if I implied that the description was a digression; to me, it is the outsized focus on the description that is a digression. I understand why that is now though. Let me mull this over and see if I can convince myself that its okay DannyS712 (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, no rush. I'll readily concede that it looks disproportionate as all hell and I can see why that might be a concern.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.