Talk:Yugoslav torpedo boat T1/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 20:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, since I am beginning to feel like a subject matter expert on Yugoslav battleships, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it definitely meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have a few comments and questions below that must first be addressed before continuing with the process. Thanks for crafting yet another superb article. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the torpedo boat, establishes the torpedo boat's necessary context, and explains why the torpedo boat is otherwise notable.
The info box for the submarine is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the referenced cited therein.
The image in the info box of the first of the 250t-class, T-group, 74 T has been released into the public domain in Austria and is therefore acceptable for use in this article.
The lede could stand to include more information from the "Description and construction" section, such as mentioning the displacement or the size of the crew.
The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Background

This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Description and construction

It's self explanatory for the most part, but could there be some mention of the naming convention or why T1 was branded as such? I know this probably seems silly as it's the first torpedo boat of the T group, but if you could find a reasonable way of explaining this to the reader, that would be preferable. If not, this is certainly not a deal breaker, just a suggestion.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Career

In the second paragraph of the "World War I" subsection, it may be helpful if you weave into the end of the sentence "By 1918, the Allies had strengthened their ongoing blockade on the Strait of Otranto..." something like "as had been the previous expectation of the Austro-Hungarian Navy" or something like that. This will tie this section in with the "Background" section which made it clear that this had been a worry of the Austrians.
A translation of the Regia Marina is given in the "World War II" subsection but this was not done for the Austrian navy which was known in German as "kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine" or just "Kriegsmarine." This should be consistently done with all navies.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

G'day West Virginian, thanks for the review. I have added the armament to the lead, and lang templates and translations to all navies. I have never seen an explicit source regarding why they chose to call them T1 etc, the assumption being T for torpedo. Actually, the Yugoslavs received both T and F group boats, but named them T1-T8. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, thank you for your response and for addressing my concerns and suggestions listed above. Upon my re-review, I find that everything looks good to go and I thank you for your fantastic work on this article. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congratulations to all the editors who have helped this article get to Featured Article Status. Content creators and reviewers alike are appreciated because it is hard work to get an article to a place where it is ‘considered the best’ on Wikipedia. Congratulations and Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 01:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]