Talk:German torpedo boat T35

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:German torpedo boat T35/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CPA-5 (talk · contribs) 12:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Claim!!! My turn to review one of those ships. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• was allocated to the United States after the war Unlink the US.
• ships a maximum speed of 33.5 knots (62.0 km/h; 38.6 mph) Is it posible to round the nought? Also unlink km/h and mph.
  • Unlinked, not possible to get rid of the trailing oughts in multi-unit conversions unless both of them have a trailing ought.
• together with eight 2 cm (0.8 in) C/38 guns Shouldn't it be ".8 in"?
  • The leading ought helps people from missing the decimal point.
• against advancing Soviet forces near Cranz Pipe Soviet to the Soviet Union.
• The boat was allocated to the United States when the Allies divided Unlink the US and link Allies.
• heavy cruiser is overlinked.
• No links for both FuMO and FumB in the article?
  • Forgotten that I'd created an article on the FuMO 21 radar. Nothing particular on the German radar detectors so I just used a generic link.

• @Sturmvogel 66: And how about FumB? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• I linked to radar detector since I'm not sure exactly what German types she actually had.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

• "1,294 t (1,274 long tons) (standard)" Link both tonnes.
• "32,000 shp (24,000 kW)" Link kW.
• The body doesn't use shafts of the infobox?
• "33.5 knots (62.0 km/h; 38.6 mph)" Is it posible to round the nought?
• "1 × quadruple, 2 × twin 2 cm (0.8 in) AA guns" Shouldn't it be ".8 in"?
• No armour?
  • Nope. Little boys like destroyers and smaller generally don't have any armor.
• No edit wars.

Sources

• Rohwer's title should be "Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939-1945: The Naval History of World War II" Unless your edition says something else?
  • My copy spells out "Two"
• No ORs.
• The sources are reliable and are academic.

Image

• Looks fine to me.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, CPA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, I'll pass it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)