Talk:Type 40 torpedo boat/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 02:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Type 40 torpedo boat
[edit]Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Type 40 torpedo boat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Djmaschek (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Reviewer comments
[edit]My comments are listed below. When I say "text" I mean everything below the introduction, except infobox and tables. Djmaschek (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Introduction:
- "The Type 1940 torpedo boats were a group of 24 torpedo boats that were built for..." The last 14 were never laid down. Would "designed or built" be more accurate?
- I went with intended to be built
- "they were comparable to contemporary large destroyers" This statement is not stated or cited in the subsequent text.
- Added
- "Hampered by Dutch workers..." Hampered by uncooperative Dutch workers?
- Excellent idea.
- "The remaining ships in the Netherlands were later broken up for scrap..." This statement is not stated or cited in the subsequent text.
- Cited in the table.
- "The Type 1940 torpedo boats were a group of 24 torpedo boats that were built for..." The last 14 were never laid down. Would "designed or built" be more accurate?
- Background and design:
- "decided to design a ship around them..." It's not clear to me exactly what this phrase means. Did they use Dutch plans or ideas? Or did they use the materials already available?
- See how it reads now.
- "Their hull was divided into 13 watertight compartments and it was fitted with a double bottom that covered 90% of their length." Noun-pronoun agreement. Suggest replacing "Their hull was" with "Their hulls were" and "it was fitted" with "they were fitted".
- "decided to design a ship around them..." It's not clear to me exactly what this phrase means. Did they use Dutch plans or ideas? Or did they use the materials already available?
- Armament and sensors:
- "Its mount had a range..." Suggest: "Each mount had a range..." This clears up the question: are we referring to plural guns or singular gun.
- Good idea.
- "Its mount had a range..." Suggest: "Each mount had a range..." This clears up the question: are we referring to plural guns or singular gun.
- Construction:
- "Much like T67, the ship was loaded with chemical..." Do you mean T65?
- Good catch.
- The table mentions T67 being damaged by bombing. I believe that since this is a unique event, it should be noted in the text.
- Since I don't have a firm date for any bombing and it's possible that the ship was never even laid down, I don't think that it's wise
- "Much like T67, the ship was loaded with chemical..." Do you mean T65?
- Table:
- Probable typo: T74 and T75 are duplicated in the table. Text says the last unit was T84, but table says last unit was T82.
- Sharp eyes!
- Probable typo: T74 and T75 are duplicated in the table. Text says the last unit was T84, but table says last unit was T82.
- Picture:
- It would be nice (but not mandatory) to have a picture.
- Indeed it would. Thanks for your thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- We will go with that. GA class. Nice work. Djmaschek (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed it would. Thanks for your thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- It would be nice (but not mandatory) to have a picture.