Talk:Type 44 torpedo boat/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 20:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Giving this one a look. —Ed!(talk) 20:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Dup links, dab links and external links tools show no problems. Copyvio detector returns no problems.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Unit cost always preferred, though I understand that in this context that data can be hard to come by.
 * A line at the beginning of design would be helpful to explain the specific intended role of the class, and establish what kind of missions they were intended for.
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It might be useful to add what accounts for Whitley's differing statistics relative to the other two. Is there some reason that source is considered less reliable?
 * No, generally it's better than Gröner because it is focused on just the DDs and TBs. In this case, however, it gives two incomplete sets of stats, saying that they were the two proposals, but never discusses which one was chosen and then it disagrees with itself in another section. And neither is a perfect match for Gröner, though one is a better match. So I chose Gröner.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Might be worthwhile to explain this is the last design of torpedo boat pushed through by Nazi Germany during the war.
 * Dunno, kinda seems obvious to me if they were all cancelled before being laid down.


 * Infobox mentions mines, but not in the prose. If they're not included in the text, should be cited in the infobox.
 * Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the reviews.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there, though as above my main concern is explaining why two sources give different details and needing to explain why one is favored over the other in the prose.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * No images survive but given the nature of the article and its length I don't think it's a necessity for one to be included especially if all that would be relevant would be a drawing and one probably isn't digitized.
 * 1) Other:
 * On Hold A few brief things before passing the article for GA. —Ed!(talk) 20:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! Passing GA. —Ed!(talk) 21:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)