Talk:German torpedo boat T1/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:German torpedo boat T1/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:German torpedo boat T1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 00:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

{{pb}}

I plan to review this article for GA class. Djmaschek (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.
2. : a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|y }}
3. ::
4. :: Review 1
5. :: {{ping|Sturmvogel 66}} Please fix or argue your case for not fixing. Djmaschek (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
6. ::*Design and description, paragraph 1, sentence 1: "...for ships that counted against the national tonnage limit." (I was confused by this clause, so I went to the Type 35 torpedo boat article, which described very well how the designers tried to shoehorn the T35s within the constraints of the London Treaty. Maybe something like: "...because such low-tonnage ships did not count against the national tonnage limit".) {{done}}
7. ::*Design and description, paragraph 1: Standard displacement text: 859 metric tons (845 long tons), infobox: 859 long tons. (A mismatch also exists with deep load data.) {{done}}
8. ::*Construction and career, paragraph 1: "Now assigned to the 1st Torpedo Boat Flotilla with her sister ships T2, T3, and the torpedo boat Kondor, they escorted a minelaying mission in the English Channel on 6–7 September." (It sounds awkward. Suggest: "T1 escorted a minelaying mission in the English Channel on 6–7 September as part of the 1st Torpedo Boat Flotilla with her sister ships T2, T3, and the torpedo boat Kondor.") {{done}}
9. ::*Construction and career, paragraph 2: "the four oldest of the sisters" (Please add: "including T1". Logically, T1 should be the oldest, but make that clear.) {{done}}
10. : b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|y }}
11. ::
12. ::
13. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
14. : a. (reference section): {{GAList/check|y }}
15. ::
    1. ::
    2. : b. (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y }}
    3. ::
       1. ::
       2. : c. (OR): {{GAList/check|y }}
       3. ::
       4. ::
       5. : d. (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|y }}
       6. ::
       7. ::
       8. It is broad in its coverage.
       9. : a. (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y }}
       10. ::
           1. ::
           2. : b. (focused): {{GAList/check|y }}
           3. ::
              1. ::
              2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
              3. : Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y }}
              4. ::
              5. ::
              6. It is stable.
              7. : No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y }}
              8. ::
                 1. ::
                 2. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
                 3. : a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): {{GAList/check|y }}
                 4. ::
                 5. ::
                 6. : b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y }}
                 7. ::
                 8. ::
                 9. Overall:
                 10. : Pass/fail: {{GAList/check|y }}
                 11. ::
                 12. ::

                 (Criteria marked 14px are unassessed)

                 Your comments on my prose were great improvements over my own phrasings, appreciations!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

                 • {{ping|Sturmvogel 66}} GA class. Djmaschek (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)