Talk:Type 44 torpedo boat

Type 44 torpedo boat has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 13, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Military history: Maritime / European / German / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Type 44 torpedo boat/GA1. 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)[reply]

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

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

It is reasonably well written:
- Dup links, dab links and external links tools show no problems. Copyvio detector returns no problems.
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.
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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
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.
Other:
On Hold A few brief things before passing the article for GA. —Ed!^(talk) 20:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the reviews.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! Passing GA. —Ed!^(talk) 21:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]