This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
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
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
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
She also carried a total of 22 533 mm (21 in) torpedoes What was thetotal number of torpedoes? Done
I misunderstood, the total is 22!
She was likely equipped with the one 37 mm (1 in) and one 20 mm (1 in) anti-aircraft guns. Speculation Done
Sorry about that. It turns out that it was indeed a 37 MM and a 20 MM. I only added in the word "likely" because I was in a hurry to finish an edit of mine and I did not have enough time to find a source. I'll fix that.--
White Shadowsyou're breaking up00:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)reply
They both can't be one-inch guns if they are differenct mm; am I missing something? I have changed this. If there is something about guns I don't know, please inform me.
DiannaaTALK16:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Well the GA has been passed but to answer your question, you are correct about the sizes. That was my bad and I should have known that they are not the same size if the numbers were diffrent ;)--
White Shadowsyou're breaking up17:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)reply
The crew abandoned ship, which foundered the next day. Better: "The crew abandoned the ship, which foundered the next day." Done
Some rather poor prose throughout, this could do with a thorough copy-edit Obvious stuff Done #::Now "reasonably well written, but the prose could be improved. ––
Jezhotwells (
talk) 01:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Copy edits Done. Congrats on another GA!
DiannaaTALK17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)reply
What makes uboat.net a reliable source - the editor Gudmundur Helgason has a business administration degree and works for an insurance company. No sources are cited for the information. This clearly fails
WP:RS. As there are no other sources cited, this article fails GA nomination as not referenced.
OK, I am persuaded by
User:Bellhalla/uboat.net reliability that Uboat.net is cited by other RS to be considered RS. I would really like to see one or two other sources used in this article however. At the momment it is just the one source which is not very good. Can you dig up any of the sources that uboat.net uses for example?
Can you trim the ugly black linew from the bottom of the picture?
This came up on another GA for a Type IXA submarine. While I can remove it, I'd be messing up the caption that is part of the image. It came from the German Federal Archives and for some reason, we tend not to modify the images from them.--
White Shadowsyou're breaking up01:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
An interesting article, but sourced entirely from an amateur hobby-site, so does not meet the Good Article criteria. There is a wealth of information about the U-boat war which has been published in reliable sources and that should be used for writing articles such as this. Not listed at this time.
OK, you have demonstrated that this is considered a reliable source, but I would like to see other sources used. I don't think a Good Article can rely on just one source. There are also other issues that have been raised above. On hold for seven days.
This extract appears in the 'Construction' section: "...and had a 105 mm/45 deck gun and 110 rounds."
but this is in the '1st patrol' section, para 3: "After firing 149 rounds..."
Clearly, there is something wrong here. Either the gunners, in the '1st patrol' section, replenished their ammunition supply in mid-actiion and mid-ocean; or, as seems more likely, one of these figures is wrong.
My money is on the latter. But to be sure, which one is the correct figure?
RASAM (
talk)
18:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)reply