Talk:German torpedo boat T34/GA1

GA Review
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)

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)
 * 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)
 * I have to disagree with you here. Looking deeping into criteria 3, I turned to the reviewing guideline, 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)
 * In that case, I would suggest that we follow Reviewing good articles - 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)