Talk:Yugoslav torpedo boat T2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • She also laid minefields; could this be merged with the previous sentence, because laying minefields is a general task, there is no need to mention it as a separate sentence Done
• Section 1;
  • Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino; I think this is not an English name, if so, put on the italics Done
• Section 2;
  • Inconsistency in figures of full load displacement Done
    • 320 tonnes (310 long tons); prose
    • 320 t (315 long tons); infobox
  • In the previous section, it is said that the requirement was "sustaining 30 knots (56 km/h) for 10 hours", here it is "980 nautical miles (1,810 km; 1,130 mi) at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph)", so this satisfy the requirement. Mention it clearly.
    • I don't think it follows that the stated performance necessarily met the criteria.
• Section 3;
  • were involved in the shelling of various Italian shore-based targets known as the Bombardment of Ancona; to a general reader it creates a confusion whether the "shelling" is known as "Bombardment of Ancona" or the "shore-based targets", make it clearer Done
• 7.4% confidence, violation unlikely

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Krishna! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 13 February 2017 (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): 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)