# Talk:Type 40 torpedo boat

This review is transcluded from Talk:Type 40 torpedo boat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 02:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Type 40 torpedo boat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.  This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.   Djmaschek (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


### Reviewer comments
My comments are listed below. When I say "text" I mean everything below the introduction, except infobox and tables. Djmaschek (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Introduction:
"The Type 1940 torpedo boats were a group of 24 torpedo boats that were built for..." The last 14 were never laid down. Would "designed or built" be more accurate?
I went with intended to be built
"they were comparable to contemporary large destroyers" This statement is not stated or cited in the subsequent text.
Added
"Hampered by Dutch workers..." Hampered by uncooperative Dutch workers?
Excellent idea.
"The remaining ships in the Netherlands were later broken up for scrap..." This statement is not stated or cited in the subsequent text.
Cited in the table.
Background and design:
"decided to design a ship around them..." It's not clear to me exactly what this phrase means. Did they use Dutch plans or ideas? Or did they use the materials already available?
See how it reads now.
"Their hull was divided into 13 watertight compartments and it was fitted with a double bottom that covered 90% of their length." Noun-pronoun agreement. Suggest replacing "Their hull was" with "Their hulls were" and "it was fitted" with "they were fitted".
Armament and sensors:
"Its mount had a range..." Suggest: "Each mount had a range..." This clears up the question: are we referring to plural guns or singular gun.
Good idea.
Construction:
"Much like T67, the ship was loaded with chemical..." Do you mean T65?
Good catch.
The table mentions T67 being damaged by bombing. I believe that since this is a unique event, it should be noted in the text.
Since I don't have a firm date for any bombing and it's possible that the ship was never even laid down, I don't think that it's wise
Table:
Probable typo: T74 and T75 are duplicated in the table. Text says the last unit was T84, but table says last unit was T82.
Sharp eyes!
Picture:
It would be nice (but not mandatory) to have a picture.
Indeed it would. Thanks for your thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
We will go with that. GA class. Nice work. Djmaschek (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)