Talk:Yugoslav torpedo boat T3/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 16:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, 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) 16:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article, and I find that it 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. Thank you for all your hard work on this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, 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):

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:

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 of Tb 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

• Is the other tenderer known, the tenderer that was beat out by STT for the torpedo boat contract? If not, that is fine, but if so, it should be included here.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Description and construction

• 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

• The inline citations should be listed in numerical order at the end of sentences, but if it's necessary for the inline citations to remain in the center of the sentence for clarity, that is fine, too.
• "against the Italian coast" should specifically mention that it was the Italian coast on the Adriatic Sea.
• The coordinates listed in the final paragraph as the sinking site of the torpedo boat actually falls on land in Trieste. Either the harbor has been filled in since 1945, or the coordinates are off.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

G'day again, West Virginian! Thanks for your thorough review. I believe I have addressed all your comments, except the tenderer issue, the name of the other company is not mentioned in sources. I have removed the coordinates, as you rightly pointed out, they are on land. I checked the source, but they are all the coordinates provided. Clearly, HMS coordinates are needed, not just HM. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I've re-reviewed the article and I find that you have successfully incorporated my suggestions and answered my questions. Everything here is in order and it is hereby a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)