Talk:HMS Safari

Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:

• 50 25 34N, 02 02 54W

(Above entry at 2008-12-21T13:50:31)

Done. Additional reference: HMS Safari (P211) [+1943] BrainMarble (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the lede

There's way too much detailed info, not to mention redundancy like the construction information. This needs to be compressed down to something much shorter along the lines of "she did not sink any ships during her first three patrols, but then sank two on her fourth and five on her fifth. She delivered commandos during her sixth" or somesuch. Details like dates, places and names of ships sunk need to be saved for the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Safari/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 23:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Giving this one a look. —Ed!^(talk) 23:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass External links and dab links look good. Copyvio detector returns green. Might want to check the dup links; I see a few here and there it's picking up.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Ref 1 backs up what is cited in the text. Other offline references accepted in good faith.

   @Ed: are you OK with the assertion that after 4 July 1943, the submarine acted as a directional beacon for landings that happened in late 1942? MPS1992 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   Should be fine. Reliable source cites it here: [1] —Ed!^(talk) 03:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   That was a typo. I switched Operation Torch (in North Africa) with Operation Husky (in Sicily). The typo was in the source. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • Note the mine capacity in the infobox, unless by chance she never actually carried mines.

   • The boat never carried mines, and the S-class in general wasn't designed for minelaying. I still haven't found a single S-class sub that laid a mine in its career. Besides, the mines were optional equipment that could be taken on or off; the infobox mentions the torpedo tubes but not the number of torpedoes. The number of mines, just like the number of shells carried, was not a major aspect of the design. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   • Is it typical to refer to Italian subs as "U-Boats"? I don't see it mentioned in that article, though you have the source material.

   • No, changed to 'submarine'. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   • "On 16 August, Safari escorted the convoy in Operation Pedestal..." I assume she was doing this while surfaced to be visible?

   • Yes, clarified. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   • "she damaged the Italian vessel Gioavannina M with gunfire." -- The deck gun I assume? And could you describe what this ship was? Previous sentence indicates no "enemy" sighted so this implies it was firing on civilians.

   • No enemies were sighted during the convoy escort, but then Safari returned to normal patrolling. Clarified in article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   • "Safari launched another torpedo, which hit amidships." -- What was the result?

   • Clarified. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   • "joining the 7th Submarine Flotilla, which conducted training." -- Might need to clarify that it conducted training full time if it's a training unit. As worded makes it seem like the ship went on one long training mission.

   • Clarified. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Two images tagged PD and FU where appropriate.

7. Other:

   On Hold Nothing major, just holding for clarifications. —Ed!^(talk) 00:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   • @Ed!: everything done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I see that substantially the major concerns I had have been addressed. Based on this, going to Pass the GAN now. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)