Talk:Type 40 torpedo boat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Type 40 torpedo boat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 02:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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.
  • 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".
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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!
  • 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)[reply]
        • We will go with that. GA class. Nice work. Djmaschek (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]