Talk:Type 1936B destroyer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: White Shadows (talk · contribs) 04:53, 2 August 2018 (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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

• The link to the host site for the image located in the infobox is broken.
  • Replaced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• The lead seems just a tad short. Is there any way that can be expanded by just a few sentences?
  • Since there were only three operational ships, none of which lasted more than a year in service, there not really much I can add as all three pretty much did the same kind of thing. And adding info from the description section would just be redundant, IMO.
• I don't see anything about the armor on the destroyers. Did they have any?
  • Nope.
    • Wow.
• I feel like the layout of the Design and description section can throw a reader off. It begins with talking about the armament of the destroyers before switching over to the dimensions of the class, only to return to more details about the armament of the ships in an entirely new subsection after covering the propulsion systems.
  • You get one paragraph of design stuff, then lots of description. Armament and sensors is a sub-section, not a full section.
    • Gotcha. That's a fair rebuttal.
• The service section seems rather short too, but this is probably something that would be better addressed at a Peer Review or if/when you bring it up to ACR.
  • Like I said above, there's not a whole lot of material on these ships since they had such short careers and did the same kinds of things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Overall, great work as usual Sturm. I don't think I'll have any issues passing this GAN after the image issue has been dealt with and I hear back from you on my other points/suggestions. I envy how quickly you can churn out content!--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's me done. Congrats on yet another GA Sturm. Like I said, I'm very envious of how quickly you churn out content!--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been distracted by RL stuff these last couple of months so it seems like I haven't done anything in ages. Developing a standard format and using a lot of boiler plate for descriptions really speeds things up. That's one reason why I chose to work on ships, they're generally not all that complicated and don't take that much time compared to more general articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)