Talk:German torpedo boat T2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Actualcpscm (talk · contribs) 10:46, 4 June 2023 (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):

   There is some very minor copyediting to do, I will take care of this myself. Copyediting done.

• Be advised that commas after prefatory clauses aren't a requirement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Although a broad audience might not have access to the cited works, content is verifiable in principle. Citations (or, in this case, notes) 5, 8, 9, and 11 need to be broken up into their constituent parts and placed next to the specific claims they support. The paragraphs that they currently support contain too much content to be referenced to a simple collection of sources; individual claims should have individual citations. The claims are still verifiable in theory, but this grouping of citations is unusual and makes verification unduly difficult. Separately from that, It would be really great to have some more accessible sources, but of course that's not required for this criterion. Re. OR: One sentence stands out: "photographic evidence shows the ship was fitted with...". Is this attributed to citation 6, together with the sentence that follows it?

• Cite 6 covers everything up to the previous cite, as all do all of my cites.
• I've woven the text from info contained in the multiple cites and see no reason to break them up as you suggest. The number of pages involved is hardly onerous, ranging only from 3 to 6 pages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have never seen citations used this way, and I don't understand your hesitation with breaking them up, since that's very much standard practice as far as I know. I don't think this issue is big enough to stop this from being a GA, because content is still theoretically verifiable. This is just very unusual. Alas, moving on. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Since photographic evidence is mentioned in the article, is this evidence available? It would be good to have a photograph of the specific boat, in addition to the existing Type plans.

• Added a picture of a sister.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's something, thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Currently awaiting nominator feedback/response.

   How so? I've already made the changes that I feel are appropriate. If there's stuff that you disagree with, specify them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

   Sorry for the late response, I missed part of your replies. Taking a look at everything now! Actualcpscm (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)